The Springbok team is a very good one - but there are players who is sub-par

I will say that on the whole the team is good - but there is room for improvement if we want to move a further step up and those are the following:-

*   We are desperately short of a no 13.   Fourie was brought on board - but he has no attacking value and tends to get on the wrong side of the law to cover his deficiency in speed.   His defence was adequate in the last two games - but against the Welsh it was sub-par.   One can only hope that the Super 15 next year will give us an indication of a better all round center.

*    In the flyhalf position we have Morne Steyn - but he has been questionable in all his last four tests.  Unlike last year his goal kicking was good this year - but that is where his value ends.   His defence was poor and at times his decision making was worse.   Never has been an acceptable backline pivot and he will never be one if the performances in the last four tests are borne in mind.   We definitely need a better all round flyhalf and I hope that players like Goosen, Lambie and evn Swiel showed us the way forward  during Super 15 next year.

*    We have only one scrummie of value and that is Du Preez - not perfect - but way ahead of the others.  Pienaar at best is iffy.   I think that since Du Preez is allowed to play by limitations determined by his Japanese club - we are in trouble insofar as back-up and future development of a suitable scrummie is concerned - especially since we cannot put our reliance in only one 32 - year old scrummie.   Hope something comes up next year in Super 15.

*    Alberts is a hero for some people - but he has severe limitations, as was shown again yesterday.   He had his best ball carry this year yesterday - but any loosie worth his salt would use that type of opportunity to  link up with backline players to enhance the attacking play of the team.   He did not do that - he ran about 10 meters, got tackled with the ball in hand and the movement evolved in a maul situation.   Has a reputation as a strong ball carrier - but his normal carries is less than 2 meters per carry on average.   Misses crucial tackles as well - like he did in the Samoan test, the Ellis Park test and again yesterday - when he made 9 tackles and missed 4.  Since he produces nothing in respect of other standard loosie functions - we need an improvement in this case.   His main problem remains his immobility and his lack of acumen.

*    Bakkies Botha was brought into the squad - but any objective analysis would show that his contribution in the games in which he had  ample playing time was not really of value.   He is not up to speed as a test player anymore - his performances being average - with zero contribution in virtually all facets of the game and his defence being sub-par.   Will not develop any further at the age of 34 and we need to find a future lock of substance.

*   Gurthro Steenkamp is just not good enough as a prop anymore and he has to go. 

If we can get improvement in the positions mentioned - we are going to be able to beat the AB's and that is a fact - otherwise we are not going to get the better of them.  

I am optimistic about most of the positions - but we are in real trouble with the scrummie and center situation.   However, like happened in the case of Le Roux this year - I am sure there will be other players that can deliver coming thr ough in Super 15 next year.

 Pine the stooge

Not "a load of poo" as you called it - it is factual and to the point.   If we want to remain the no 2 rugby nation in the World or slide down further - keep on playing the players I listed - in key games they will always let us down badly.

If you are too prejudiced or too blind to see with your own eyes what is going on - then you really are the village idiot - clear for all to see.

If you can counter the negative issues of the players I listed above - by giving specific examples to counter the facts as stated and the examples given - please do so.  The fact that you reverted to the phrase used above - showed that you cannot - that again confirm how really stupid you are.   

 We have a good team but Mike lists 6 players, all instrumental to the Boks as sub par? How does that make us good then Mike?

You do realise we were in control of every game this NH tour. We played the conditions a lot better than the best team in the world, the AB's did..We should have gone all 3 games not conceding a try. Further more, we never looked like conceding a try despite Huget's arsy try. That was just opportunistic and not well worked. Much like F Sautia's try against the Boks.

We have held some damn good teams tryless and you wana talk shit about sub par players and mention Alberts in that bunch after he racks up MOM performances every game. The rest of the rugby world respects him but you think he is useless.

Mike, I want you to up your game over this break and come back in 2014 with your head out your arse!

I want you to shorten your posts too (drastically) because this long winded bullshit is not making you look clever when its constantly back firing.

Right now, Morne Steyn is the best controller of a game we have at 10. Yes, I wanted Lambie to step up this year but for some reason, he did not. He had moments where he looked the answer and others where he looked shit. Morne dictated terms against the French and was a big part of the reason the French never played in our half.

You bang on about the metres gained per run from Alberts. Have you tried actually watching the game and his input vs the stats. He softens the opposition up. He knocks them back constantly until they lose their passion and will to run..He is a legend.

 Boklogic

First of all - lets have a look at what you wrote - Alberts was not MOM in all games he played in and if you near in mind his stats for the last game it is a mystery to me how he

was MOM:- 

Alberts

0/0

0

0/0/5

19

0

1

0

0

9/4

0/1

0

0/0

Willem Sloth Alberts have been made MOM based on one good ball-carry of about 12 meters - where he beat one defender and where instead of passing the ball as part and parcel of a wider attack - he died with the ball.  The rest of his ball carries were harmless stuff - being tackled by the first opposition defender.  That 12 meter carry was stemming from a poor French line-out throw-in - caught by Alberts.   Please explain to me how a loosie can make 9 tackles - and MISSED 4 TACKLE ATTEMPTS  - and still be regarded as acceptable.   Not that his missed tackles are not a normal Alberts - you must only go back to the Ellis Park tests to see the standard Alberts miss tackle bugger-ups.

Short enough for a less than intelligent response (as per normal) on your part?

Mozart

In essence I agree with you about the reasons for the Ellis Park loss against the AB's - the main reason were tackle misses and the absolutely senseless play of Morne Steyn as the siren for the end f the first half was on the point of being sounded.

Who was missing the most crucial tackles leading to tries being scored.   It was Morne Steyn (2), JJ Engelbrecht (1) and Willem Alberts (1).   JJ Engelbrecht has been removed - but the fact remained that the other two are still habitual tackle missers.   If you look at the French test - Alberts missed 4 tackles and Steyn 1.  So the real defence problem has only partially being resolved and the AB's will keep on attacking Morne - like they did at Ellis Park and keep on beating Alberts.

Only a pity that Engelbrecht was replaced by the useless in attacking play Fourie.   We really need a player at center that can defend properly and also attack properly.       

Sharkbok

The ESPN stats are actually reliable.   It is not done by a sideline sitting person as you allege.   it is based on a computer based analysis programme that measure every occurrence on the field of play and the role of every player.   Missed tackles are where a player attempt a tackle and miss the tackle - clear as daylight if the programme is analysed on a second to second analysis.   Where a player is not attempting a tackle - like happened frequently enough in the case of some players - it is not regarded as a   missed tackle - but it still entails a defensive lapse on the part of the player concerned. 

I clearly saw at least three tackles missed by Alberts - where the next defenders had to make the tackles and made  notes of those as I was watching the game.   Believe me it is fairly routine for Alberts to miss tackles - in the CC final - where the praise singing was ear splitting - he missed more tackle than he actually made.  Most spectators actually miss the incidents when looking at games and ends up with a less than comprehensive outlook on matches.  

I do not always believe that the ruck story is true.  It is true only when there is a turnover in possession as a result of players being hit hard in a ruck.   It happened once in the French game and neither Alberts nor Botha was involved in that case.   In any event one player cannot have a major impact in such a case - it is a team effort. 

I normally look at three different stats programmes and the rarely are really that different from each other.  they are mostly very near to each other.   For instance in the Ellis Park test Morne was credited with making 6 tackles - missing 5 by ESPN.  Foxsport gave the numbers as 5 tackles made - 5 missed and Test Rugby had the same stats as ESPN.     All are computer-based evaluations - but the programmes may show minor differences.

I would rather believe the statistical data - than the newspaper hype on players.

There have been quite a few occasions this year where one starts to wonder just how well the All Blacks would fare if decisions went against them for a change, instead of constantly for them.

They are no doubt favoured in many cases and one has to be blind not to see this. Hiding your head in the sand doesn’t change this.  It’s as if they feel they deserve to be treated differently to the rest of the world. Look at the last world cup final. Is this a marketing ploy?   

Whether a fan whinges or not isn’t going to change anything. That’s a crock of shit. The mind set of our boys on the field and the coach need to be right. It’s there we’ll claim victory and by the sounds of things, we're on the right path. 

The current All Blacks match 23 is the highest capped All Black team in their history. They are riddled with players getting a little long in the tooth. This will all come to an end … just like it did with the Bokke.

They’re on high right now and the way these arrogant kiwi posters carry on one would swear it’s a high that will last an eternity.

Laughable!!

I really look forward to the time when these prick are all brought back down to earth with a bang.

When Carter’s gone, McCaw’s gone, Mealamu’s gone, Woodcock’s gone, Nonu’s gone, Smith’s gone … what then ... and this is all just around the corner.

Our team is a team in progress. We are still in a building phase and so far a massif improvement from last year.

If we weren’t robbed in New Zealand it would be a dead tie between our teams. It may even have resulted in a different game plan being played at Ellis Park and that could easily have gone our way.

Shit happens and we have to live with it.

Now the kiwis are praising themselves as they usually do … telling each other how wonderful they are.

I'm amazed they haven't made the French ref and honoury New Zealander. 

Their arrogance knows no bounds.

I see a bubble bursting in the not too distance future.

Look very much forward to it.

 Clean Cut

I have consistently warned that some players are too long in the tooth and that they are not bringing through strong enough replacements.   I have even gone on to point out specifically were decline in the McCaw game since his return from his sabbatical was absolutely clear.

The AB's - even with Nonu and Conrad Smith available - have serious problems in midfield and again there is nothing of note coming through.   Carter is definitely going out of the picture and Cruden and Barrett are good flyhalfs - but not on par with Carter.  However, their props are their main weakness and there is no hooker of substance coming through.  However, both are five times better than Morne Steyn is.

Despite the declining McCaw - they are still better in the back row than we are - and that really is a worrying factor.  That too my mind is a priority area to be corrected.

To summarize -

*   we have  far better tight 5 than the AB's have;

*   we are not on par in the back row with them;

*   we have a poor backline pivot compared to them

*   in general the Springboks for the rest have a better backline than the AB's  insofar as try-scoring abilities are concerned.

The last statement will be met by howls of protest from the NZ members - but it is a fact of life.   Take for instance the Ellis Park test - our four tries were all scored by backline players - only two of the ir five tries were scored by backline players - the rest by their back row players (Messam and Read)      

Cleancut

Your summary as to our back row compared to the AB's one is a bit skewed.   I agree with you about Reid and Vermeulen - they are both very good - but bring different values to the game.   As to McCaw and Louw - in view of the recent deficiencies in McCaw's game - perhaps yes.

On the issue of Sloth Alberts and Messam - the answer is no - there is no comparison.   Just go and look at the Ellis Park game - where Messam scored two tries and Alberts caused a bugger up in a tackle on Read that led to a third try.   It can indeed be argued that Alberts could have prevented the first Messam try as well  by not clumsily falling over his own feet and - being the nearest loosie to the tackled Aaron Smith -  gone for the breakdown ball recovery.  

Just two examples - but even in a good game against the French Sloth missed 4 tackles.  He is never involved in any breakdown ball recoveries in any event - so do you now get the picture.   Incidentally Messam only played in three tests on the RC against Sloth's 6 tests.  Messam in three tests carried the ball 18 times - Sloth in 6 tests carried the ball 23 times.

Get the picture now - Sloth is the weak link in the backrow.  

Cleancut

We would have done better id we had a proper fkyhalf and a proper no 7 - Sloth'a contributions in the 3 tests were as follows:-

Alberts

0/0

0

0/0/8

5

0

0

1

2

15/3

1/1

0

0/0

Alberts

1/0

5

0/0/11

19

0

0

0

0

3/0

0/0

2

0/0

Alberts

0/0

0

0/0/5

19

0

1

0

0

9/4

0/1

0

0/0

So lets analyse his contributions and see what they really were without the media hype and CC's ravings:-

*   Sloth's moment of glory was when he was involved un a push-over try by the Springboks forwards and ended up with ball in hand in a rolling maul

*   Sloth handled the ball 24 times in the three games and passed it to another player ONCE- no link player at all.

*   Sloth carried the ball 23 times for a total gain of 43 meters - that is an average gain of 1,83 meters gain per carry.  Of the 23 carries  -  one carry entails a gain of 12 meters and beating one defender - so the average carry meterage gain for the other 22  

carries were in fact 1,4 meters.   .   In 23 carries he beat one defender and made one of-load.  Mighty ball carrier - what a joke.

*   In the 23 carries Sloth knocked on the ball twice - losing possession in the process. 

*  Sloth made 28 tackles missing 7 - that is a miss tackle ratio of 20% - and anybody calling it a decent ratio for a loosie must consult a head shrink.

*   Sloth took 3 line out balls in the three tests and gave away two penalties,

Not listening to the media hype - in fact his tour was not at all "mammoth"  - it was relatively average - but for defence which can be described as poor.