With the start of the S15, we have the usual focus on new players....which is fine, in as far as it goes. But RWCs usually produce some golden oldies, who have a huge influence.
Johnson 33
Back 34
Os 35
Brad Thorne 36
Based on this, the return of guys like Bakkies or Schalk is distinctly possible. Perhaps we should be trying to spot lost old talent!
Johnson and Thorn were the amongst the most overrated locks I have seen play rugby.
Os was a legend in his day but added nothing at the age of 35, much like Percy added nothing from the back for the Boks. All he could do was kick for poles.
Back was hardly a world beater
All of those guys had outstanding RWCs.
Brad Thorn
At 36 years and 255 days old Thorn is now both the oldest man to play in a World Cup final and the oldest man to emerge as a winner. Will now retire from international rugby but looks as fit as ever. 8
Percy had a magnificent RWC final finishing the whole second half with an injured leg and doing all his duties superbly. Without Percy I doubt we would have won our RWC title.
Back was one of England's outstanding players during the 2003 Rugby World Cup, starting six of the seven games in the tournament and scoring two tries along the way. The only fixture he missed was the pool game against Uruguay.
Yeah right Moffie
Thanks Sapp
Mozart
This really is silly - I do not think the older guys are really a key to ovver-all WC performances. They are the exceptions and not in any way the rule. With all due respect we are not that denuded of good players to want old players back in any event.
The problem was the exact opposite of winning WC. The English stuck to the old players that won the WC up until 2007 and became unstuck. The Springboks did the same in 2011 and became unstuck. Matter of fact history repeats itself constantly and no country in the world has ever won successive WC's.
The reason is the same all the time =- reluctance to change players - even if they are not showin the form and skills they used to show. Botha has been in France now for nearly two years playing CLUB rugby - not really a norm for selection based on reputation. Steenkamp is the same - and he really was poor to average in the tests he played in.
Problem is too many people are addicted to reputation and ignore sustained form - they want the older players back until they flopped completely.
By the way I agree with Saffex - Thorne was not really a top lock - although he was better than the average All Black locks at one stage - by 2011 he was playing on reputation only.
Depends to a degree on your position. Props can be effective in their early thirties backs not so.
What old players will make the next world cup? Need to be specific.
No it's not Mike. Experience wins RWCs. Were there any newbies in any of the 99, 03, 07, 11....RWC winning teams? Well maybe Cruden, but Carter would likely have been better.
Lomu was the last and only true newbie to impact in a RWC and even then the Boks bottled him up in the final.
Mozart
Experience without performance lose WC's constantly more often than it wins WC's. Yes their should be experienced players in the squad - but not at the expense of performance. Experience could be gained over playing international rugby over a three or four year period and is not the prerogative of the over 30's
There is no dount that experience helps to perfect performances - but that experience only cannot ever be a logical basis for selection of players. Experience coupled to performance is ideal - but then the experienced players must still be the best in their relevant positions.
The term - class is permanent - form is temporary - is in sport probably abused beyond regocnition when used in the wrong context and as an excuse to justify constant under-performance over a long period. by experienced players.
Mike all of those players were past it, some of them were very average rugby players. None of them influenced the outcome, if anything some were passengers
Saffex
You get absurdities like the selection of Van der lInde for the EOYT if you look at experience as a norm. Mozart was raving about the player - but we all saw the outcome - he was way past his sell-by date and a real disaster in the test he played in. I intensely dislike the addiction of people to certain players - if they under-perform they must - despite all their expereience - be sent packing
Experienced is one thing, washed up is another. Give me young and fresh over a 30 plus anyday.
The liabilities in Meyers side were the old farts like Jean, Morne, Steenkamp, CJ and co
We have more than enough experience in Habana, JP, Frans, Hougaard, Pienaar, Beast, Bismark, Strauss, Jannie, Bekker, Brussouw, Louw and Alberts to form the nucleus of the Bok side. Any of the other experienced players are no longer worthy - they are just liabilities.
Add young certainties like Lambie, Goosen, Coenie, Etzebeth, Vermeulen and Coetzee to the mix and we are almost there with our Bok side. A few of our exciting new youngsters added to the above and we have our Bok side sorted. There are many to choose from in Rhule, Mapoe, Taute, Jordaan, JJ, Serfontein, Jantjies, Reinach, v/Zyl, Kitshoff, M.v/d Merwe, Malherbe, Fourie, Steph du Toit, Willemse, Roux, CJ Stander, Elstadt, Kolisi and Arno Botha to name but some.
Bok rugby is sorted without having to rely on the deadwood
The likes of Jean and Morne need to be put out to pastures
It's really dead simple....not integral calculus....name the players, new to test rugby, who actually made a difference to the RWC winning team. Right now I'm coming up with zero. Feel free to help me, or concede that experienced players are far more important than fresh young talent in terms of RWCs.
mozters post is on the right path, experience is crucial for RWC success, but a more accurate title would be a balanced team wins the RWC and by team i mean everyone, players/coaches.
carters 30+ and he just won the IRB player of the year, no small feat IMO, though IMO McCaw should have won that title, but whatever.
McCaws form is also another prime example, cos theres no other loosie that matched what he did on the international scene from an attacking and defensive point of view. marcel coetzee was the only one who could have surpassed his efforts, but meyer in his infitie wisdom relegated him to the bench where his work percentage strikerate suffered.
for me the coach needs to be aware to maintain the balance and be awre that the team comes first.
this is why i really rate graham henry>
during the 2011 RWC, the jncumbent fullback torch was passed from mills to dagg, not before the RWC, cos before henry had stated that Mils was the No1 15. yet by the time the finals rolled out, dagg became the official incumbent, as his performance to date on all levels could not be ignored>
for most that might be an easy descion, but then they wouldnt be awre of the history between henry and mils. henry has coached mills on every single level of his career. from high school, to the auckland team in ITM, to the auckland blues to the mighty mighty All Blacks.
in it mills became the most capped fullback in history and was a major player in the All Blacks success over the last decade.
despite this and the fact mills was a centurion, henry opted for dagg, he went with his head over his heart and voila, one of the best tough decsions ive ever seen made.
experienced players have a real value to a team, especiall a RWC team, but the coaches also have to know where and more importantly when to play them.
i am very happy with the All Blacks progress on the road to the RWC, on the EOYT every player including 2 brand spaning new debutants played a game, something the Boks didnt do with their squad, despite taking 30+ players.
i guess we can only wait and see, but there really has been no team that didnt have a wealth of exprince when winning the RWC.
Mozart
It is six years after the last win in WC by us - and the average age of the players then was 28 - hoiw do you expect them to be still in the team now? They should never be in the team now - rugby is not a game for rugby geriatrics. And besides that we do not need them. The answer is in team renewal based on professional performance - not in stagnation.
Sasuke... Dagg is a classic case of how to do things right. He played firstly off the bench and in less important tests. When it was clear he was going surpass Mils....Mils wasn't canned. It was up to Dagg to play him out of the team....which he eventually did. By that time Dagg had been pushed to be the best he could be and already had solid experience.
That's the key don't anoint the youngsters.....ask them to displace the incumbent through performance. In RSA it sometimes becomes a popularity contest and we have a high failure rate .
Mozart
At last we can agree on thi subject although you put it more precisely:-
"That's the key don't anoint the youngsters.....ask them to displace the incumbent through performance.:
I have never annointed a youngster - I have said I believe that some of them may have potential - but in the ultimate sense their performances are the key to their future selectability. Whether you are experienced or young = the key remains - no sustained performances - no selection.
There are not many people on this site that thinks like Saffex - who identify youngsters and want to rush them into the Springbok team . He sees castles in the sky insofar as his :seleced" players are concerned - and does not realize that out of every 100 promising youngsters probably lees than 10% could ultimnately reached a stage where through experience and performance thay can be selected for the Springbok team - what a farce.
Is their enough data for this assumption to be confirmed as valid?
There has not been that many world cups.
I actually disagree with this statement. I agree that a mix of experienced players and the best young players, but not as the title states that "Old Guys win WC.
The oldest team to win the World Cup was England.
-----------
For the boks 2 worldcups, this is not true.
The bok team that won the 1995 team had many young to medium experienced players. I cant remember many that were old. Perhaps Kobus Wiese.
Some of the young to medium experienced players were -
Young-
James Small, (wing)
Joost Van Der Westzuizen(possibally game clinching tackle on Lomu),
Chester Williams, (wing)
Os Du Raant, Prop
Mark Andrews- lock.eightman
Medium Experience-
Franswaar Pienaar(captain),
Stransky, (flyhalf)
Henie Le Roux. (inside)
Japie Mulder, (outside)
Andre Joubert play at 15
Apart from Francoois Pienaar who got dropped due to concussions, most of these key players continued for long. Although he did play in the UK for a good while.
-Old-
Kobus Wiese.
------
- The Boks team that won the 2007 was mostly young- to medium. (Most of them played on during the PDV era) for the next 4 years. Some are still playing.
--
Old
(Percy, Os Du Raant)
Played until 2011 cup
John Smit- Hooker (still playing in France)
Matfield, Bakkies (Matfield retired before 2012
Spies, smith, Schalk (all still playing)
Fourie Dupreez- - still playing in Japan
Butch- still playing for Sharks
Jean/Frans- still playing
Jacque Fourie- still playing(japan)
Habana- still playing
JP- still playing
Percy(retired)
----
The English team in 2003 was the most experienced team to win the World Cup.
-
I do think that the Bok team could have beaten the All Blacks had we beaten Australia in the quarters. (In Graeme Henrys biography he said that the coaching staff wanted to play the boks in the semis, however it turned out as the tournament went on, that the All Black players wanted to to play Australia instead of South Africa.
The players were certain they would beat Australia, but this was not the case with SA
The players all started cheering and clapping when they heard that they would not be playing the boks in the semi-final. (remember at this stage Mccaw was hobbling around on pain killers and Carter was out of the tournament)
I think our forward power could have beaten the All Blacks in the semis.
Just like the England forward power won the 2003 World Cup, regardless of their age.
Sometimes forwards get more powerful with age, whilst backline players usually lose their speed as they get older and become less effective.
So in summart, I do not really think age was a factor in us losing or not winning in 2011. I think we pretty much put our best players on the pitch, apart from Bismark(for pork spit). We should have beaten OZ with better finishing skills, and the BL sideshow.
Then it would have been dominating the wee All Black forwards and getting into the final.
All the All Blacks were shitting themselves about the bok forward domination, except for Mccaw who had constipation due to all of the pain killers he was taking for his ankle. (excerpt. chapter 11- Graeme Henrys biography).
An example, look no further than Frans Steyn in his first WC - far better than any of the old farts you mentioned.
Give me the young guns over the likes of a Jean or Steenkamp right now - no contest.
We messed up 2012 because I coach showed faith in too many hasbeens
Nice post SB. But I have to argue a bit. Your young group had plenty of experience. All of them started playing test rugby at least a year earlier. Joost and Chester 2 years earlier and Chester three years earlier. There were no rookies.
I think both our 07 team and our 11 team were in the zone of confidence. This team probably peaked in 09 when they were actually quite old.
My point is perhaps more accurately stated as follows. You are more likely to successfully find a veteran to bring back to the team in a RWC year....like Os....than to successfully blood a rookie.
Saffex
Is Francois Steyn not a has been? His performances this year was substantially worse than a definite has been - Jean de Villiers
Steyn emerged as a very young player....so by the time he got to the RWC he had already played in 9 tests. He was no rookie. Nonetheless his missed tackle on Mathew Tait, the result of over committing, almost put us at risk of losing. Thank heavens for miracle tackles by Matfield and Rosseau to snuff out the threat.
As in the case of Carter, we would have been even better with Jean.
What is certainly true is Steyn in 2007 was no worse than Steyn today, maybe better.
Frans was a revelation in that WC and 9 tests constitues a rookie, on par with Etzebeth today.
You wanted an example you have one, much like if we were playing a WC today, Etzebeth would be my example.
I have no issue with experience, but problem with SA is that we show too much faith in experienced players that have passed it.
If we were playing in a WC now, we would have more than enough experience in players like Habana, JP, Frans, Hougaard, Pienaar, Beast, Bismark, Strauss, Jannie, Bekker, Brussouw, Louw and Alberts.......beyond this and we would be selecting players that are past it.
The point is Etzebeth wont be a rookie when he trots out for his first test this year. Just as Steyn wasn't in RWC07.
As to your other point, here are the Springbok RWC final back ratings by Sporting life:
Monty 9
JP 7
Fury 7
Fransie 7
Habana 6
James 6
F du Preez 6.
So Fransie was middle of the pack....frankly I would have dropped him a notch for that serious defensive lapse. Note Monty....the oldster got the highest Bok rating.
"Percy Montgomery- Clean kicking from hand and flawless from four kicks from the floor. Superb positioning throughout and did not put a foot wrong all game" 9
Nope one defensive lap does not define a player, Frans was damn good. Percy will have scored high for his kicking, he did nothing in general play to merit a 9.
Whichever way you look at it Frans then and Etzebeth now would hardly be classified as experienced test players
LOL...please note Ol' Maaik, Saffex and CC.
LOL...please note Ol' Maaik, Saffex and CC.
Can 0only be a repeat of Mozart insanity also kno wn as Mozarttitis
I would love to hear which older guys he thinks will win us the world cup next year.
So much BS - it is a record breaker that ended up in the infamous Japan disaster.
Actual average age at the last RWC...28.2 for NZ, Ireland and SA
..SA had 14 players aged 30 or above led by Matfield (38) and nine players younger than 25
Oldest squad there was France average 29.2
Average age of the winners over the last 5 RWC ...south of 28
Mozart
As far as I can remember the average age of the players in the Japan disaster was 30 years of age so what else is ne w age demon?
Well ... all that wisdom ... and yet no new list of the elderly.
How come?
I guess we just don't have any elderly folk that would make a difference today. Instead of blooding new recruits back in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 ... etc ... Meyer wanted to relive his dream years as Bulls coach. Take all the glory for himself.
Think of how many elderly folk you could have listed in your on going quest. If only Meyer had looked towards the future of the Springbok ... and not focused so much on putting himself on some pedestal for all to admire.
Instead he ended up burning himself badly with that shameful loss to Japan ... and left Coetzee to start afresh with his quota ridden sides.
Meyer certainly did us no favours. We haven't been able to recover since his term as Bok coach.Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaa!!
Good attempt ... but no cigar, Mozart.
The Boks should not have been in that position to begin with. They should have been 50 pts ahead with their second stringers .
Japan has never come close to being ranked within the top 10 ... we're two time champions ... it was supposed to be a complete mismatch.
Yet ... we were out smarted ... out coached ... and in the end ... totally out played.
Stay down, Mozart!!!
