Tighthead an issue again

All our eggs were in the Malherbe basket....and where do we go now. Malherbe is another hyped player, as I warned on many occasions. McGrath had him for breakfast.
But where do we go?
Coenie is a disaster. Redlinghuis was also easily handled by McGrath until he was subbed.  Malherbe  gets on his knees on the deck....Marcel pops up ....both flawed  scrummagers.
Which makes one wonder if Trevor shouldn't be given a more serious run at tighthead. He has an ideal tighthead physique and is rarely embarrassed in the scrumming stakes. Yes positional changes rarely work and as we saw with Coenie the shift to tighthead isn't easy. But it would be a great solution if it worked...ticking a quota box and allowing the potential use of Kitshoff as the Beasts successor.

 Mozart the ignorant at it again.  He obviously do not undertand that the front row is a unit and that the hooker plays a major role in sc rumming - so he is on a tangent again. 

 As I've said in an earlier post ... it's easy enough to see which prop suffers under pressure ... which prop has a poor technique ... and which prop is being scrummed into the ground.
All you need to do is open your eyes.
How do you an@lyse a hooker's scrumming technique?
How do you know when he's the sole cause of a dismal front row performance?
How do you know?
Tell me!!
I'm seriously interested.

 I have given you a lot of examples of flop scrummaging indicating poor support of hookers.  But let me explain further.  The hooker is part of the front row.  He has three basic requirements - to hook the ball, to balance the scrumming effort of the front row and to provide strength in the scrumming effort.   When the last two is absent - and that happens with players like Strauss, Mbonambe and Ntubeni - the scrumming of teams suffer.  Marx and Van der Merwe is excellent in all three aspects and it helps the props massively.   When there is a lack of the second requirement - the whole effort is jeopardized - both the loosehe ad and the tighthead suffers.  I am a great admirer of Redelinghuys - but he flopped in the test on Saturday - why did that happen?   Try and evaluate that and you will get the answer.        

 No ... that's not true.
All I'm hearing is unsubstantiated accusations. You've proven nothing, Mike.
Show me footage. Show me anything that prov es your case.  
You don't like Strauss ... so now it's his fault.
I don't like Strauss much myself and have pointed out why. All factual.
I'm afraid that unless you come up with a lot more evidence it all sounds like conjured nonsense.
Thumbsucking!!!

It has nothing to do with me disliking players - more to do what is practically happen in every game Strauss played in as a hooker.   I thought Strauss was a great hooker - basically because of the work he did outside of scrumming - but the latter has vanished from sight.  The Cheethas scrummaging was poor when he was their hooker - the Bulls scrummaging has been poor when he played for them - the Stormers scrummaging was top class with Liebenberg as hooker - deteriorated subsequently with Ntiubeni and Mbonambe.   Why was Redelinghuys so poor when he came on in the test on Saturday?  Just ask yourself the question and you will find the answer.  Put Marx in as hooker and the problem will vanish.  Believe me - I am serious about this one.  

 Mike ... the Bulls have been poor at that set piece for quite some time now. Even before Strauss arrived.
How could they not be with Greyling and Kruger!!
I agree that Strauss has been poor in the tight loose. He is also a poor captain and that's why I'm calling for his dismissal.
Not for a lack of scrumming power. 
If I could prove he was a poor scrummager I would add it to the list ... believe me ... it would make my case stronger ... but I can't ... and neither can you.
It's easy to say it's so ... but a whole different ballgame proving it.
Sorry Mike... your theory ... and that's all it is ... theory ... doesn't wash.

 Here is a thing.
Rugby has evolved and not always for the good of the game.  Many moons ago when rugby was still played by players who had a genuine love and passion for the game and not because they were big and could potentially stand to make a lot of money.I am not saying the modern player does not love the game, but I bet you anything you like, if we had to take away all the monies they make from the game (like in the old days) we'd have less than half of these showponies left.
So, Frontrow players in the good old days were short stubby / stocky guys with a short neck and strong shoulders.  Todat the frontrow players are taller than the heyday's locks.  Compare some frontrow players to Frik du Preez etc.
While the scrum is a unit and the individual players are interdependent, the individual abilities are also very important.
Most of our tight-heads are retreads who actually are loose-heads converted because of a lack of decent tight-heads.  Problem is the two positions are very much different and converts normally are not very good, technically.  The problem with Coenie etc.
In most cases our frontrow players are placed incorrectly at the engage stage of the scrum.  Feet are not at the correct spot and ar$es are either too high or too low.
Some of our locks are also to blame  - simply not doing what they should by "locking" the frontrow.  If a lock binds incorrectly and does not pull his tightforward inwards then we have this player pushing "in" and a penalty will be given away.
Some of our flank-forwards are also poor in technique which makes the frontrow guys job difficult.
The problem at scrum time is not Strauss - while he is not even close to his best form in general play, he is not our scrum problem.  SA seem to have a misconception when it comes to training / coaching the "pack" - we use a frontrow person like Proudfoot to do the job.  I doubt id he is the correct guy to look at the holistic, cohesive "machine".  I cannot think of the correct person, but you'd need a guy who understands the workings of the assimilated manpower which is the scrum.  Maybe a clever eight-man......
We are clearly very thin in the excellent tight-forward stakes, other than a few converts !      

 Nicely put. 
It takes more than the hooker to "lock" the scrum ... it takes more than the hooker to produce a solid unit. 
It's a good attempt, Machiavel li ... but sadly it's not going to be enough to convince Mike.
Strauss is to blame for all our woes and we're too damn stupid to realise this.

 

 It takes more than the hooker to "lock" the scrum ... it takes more than the hooker to produce a solid unit. {{ The hooker holds the heads but the locks and flanks control the ar$es - if there is no synergy then the union is broken - many reasons therefore - needs careful step-by-step analysis of the whole process from start to finish!}} 
... but sadly it's not going to be enough to convince Mike.  {{Some people have their set opinions, sometimes based on the stuff they smoke or drink at the time of forming them - You simply cannot and should not form such a vehement opinion based on the images on a TV screen only.  But then again some spectators are omnipotent and so technical astute that coaches from across the world phone them on a daily basis to get expert advice!}}
Strauss is to blame for all our woes and we're too damn stupid to realise this.  {{Rugby is a 15 man game, but while there are 15 on the field there are more who add to the technical and technique side.  Maybe, just maybe this is where the problems originate}} 

 Machiavelll - you have a very good point.  There are two sets in the Tight 5 and those are the front row comprising of the hooker and the two props and obviously the two locks makes up the second set.  They are not independent players - they form a unit.  If somebody is weak in the unit - it drastically affect the functioning of the unit.  Why I am saying the problem is with Strauss is based on his performance for the various teams where he was the starting hooker - the Cheetahs, the Bulls and now the Springboks.  Another indicator is the performance of Redelinghuys - with Marx around he never failed  - with Strauss around he failed on Saturday.  One will have to wait and see what happens in future - when Strauss is not playing - but I am pretty sure that my assessment is very near to the mark.    

 Machiavelll - you have a very good point.  There are two sets in the Tight 5 and those are the front row comprising of the hooker and the two props and obviously the two locks makes up the second set.  They are not independent players - they form a unit.  If somebody is weak in the unit - it drastically affect the functioning of the unit.  Why I am saying the problem is with Strauss is based on his performance for the various teams where he was the starting hooker - the Cheetahs, the Bulls and now the Springboks.  Another indicator is the performance of Redelinghuys - with Marx around he never failed  - with Strauss around he failed on Saturday.  One will have to wait and see what happens in future - when Strauss is not playing - but I am pretty sure that my assessment is very near to the mark.    

 Fabricated nonsense ... nothing more.
Thumb sucking at it's very best.
The standard Mike procedure is ... 
If at first you don't understand ... suck, suck and suck again ... then sell it as factual ... follow it up with supportive arguments till the cows come home ... and when everyone's gotten tired  and bored of the same repetitive nonsense ... claim your victory. 
It's like Mike said ... "I have learnt one lesson in life – do not hear what you don’t want to hear." 
Waaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha ... what a clown.

 @Mike
In order to assess the situation the trainer needs to be prepared and "test" different positions with different components against similar or same opponents and conditions.
Thus one cannot do one test on dry hard field and another on a soft / unstable field - nor can you do it when it is raining etc.
So, we take the first test / evaluation of 1,2,3 with locks 4 & 5 .  Then we change the one component and assess and then change the other component etc.  Only once you have made at least 8X8 "changes" will you begin to see the variances and then those that stand out need to be re-evaluated again.
You see Mike, determining the actual "problem" is not that easy or quick, least of all is it easy for us sitting in front of an electronic device.  One which distorts reality and is controlled by someone else.
Whilst I have empathy for your "gut-feel" and "passion" for the remedies you concoct, you'd only be correct once in a thousand times.  Rugby today is a science all on its own and not that easy to analyse.  Maybe herein lies the problem we are having with coaches and assistants - they too may be assessing with 90% emotion and 10% factual research.

This is just another version of Tokkie's .....'our scrums are weak because of Hatfield'. He even blamed Matfield for our tighthead problems, when Matfield was packing behind the loosehead and old Tok hadn't noticed.
There is no evidence that the Bok scrum over the last two years was any stronger with Bismarck at hooker vs Strauss. And I haven't heard Bismarck being accused of poor scrumming.
All thumb sucking nonsense. 

 Look - I wrote above and stand by it.  We will see how the process develop without Strauss - with him every set of props will to my mind fail.  There is ample evidence in all teams Strauss played for that the props falter in scrumming.   However, Matfield was the weak link in the past and I was supported in that by many expert locks.  Mozart is too stuck in his closed mind to see things that hit him in the face.    He knows squat about forward play and has been wrong so often in the past that one can only read his protestations as coming from complete ignorance - not from anything with substance.    

  ""Look - I wrote above and stand by it.  We will see how the process develop without Strauss - with him every set of props will to my mind fail.  There is ample evidence in all teams Strauss played for that the props falter in scrumming. ""  
I am not here to argue the merits of your concocted findings, however:- Please elaborate why you as a TV "a_nalyst" are able to spot this "ample evidence" of Strauss' failure at scrumming while acknowledged and astute rugby experts fail to see the "obvious"?
Just think for a moment, if they are not able to spot it and you are - WTF are you doing posting on a forum?  Should you not take this profound knowledge of yours and go and save our national team from pending disaster?  Why have you not written strongly worded letters to the media and SARU with this finding of yours, obviously supported by facts and research material etc.
If you feel so strongly about it why not give it a bash?  Could not do any harm now, could it?

Tell me.....I ask with tears in my eyes....how can the lock behind the loosehead be the primary cause for the failure of the tighthead?
Mike for years on this site your assassinations of players you didn't like have only been spotted by a few. Now it seems more and more posters have discovered your BS.
Clean up your act and stop trying to be Sherlock, you simply don't have the capacity.  

 @Machiavelli. An example of ComradeMike's TV a.nalysis. In 2012 he tried to convince us of the following. The scrumming of Beast (who had Matfield scrumming behind him) improved when Bakkies Botha (who was scrumming behind Jannie du Plessis) was subbed. 

Sounds like simple physics to me

 
Whether ComradeMike looks down or not, when he has decided that there is "ample evidence" that gravity does not exist, then......  "Look - I wrote above and stand by it"

 The scrum is very complex and new combinations should get tome to evolve and settle...the tight 5 as a whole. I am not yet convinced that Koch is a failure at 3. He was injured in both tests he played and playing injured against Argie is ludicrous. I'll try and give him another chance. Kitshoff should get a run too.

 From the Irish Times:
 Jack McGrath 
Out played all other frontrowers, seeing off Springbok tight head Frans Malherbe, so the hope is he somehow finds the resolve for one more shift, because without him Ireland cannot win this series. Rating: 7

From Rugby 365 who selected McGrath for the TOW....guys who are big Malherbe fans:
1 Jack McGrath (Ireland): Despite being on the losing side, McGrath's relentless work at the scrum and lineout set pieces contributed towards the visitors securing quality ball possession. His sheer power and strength was too much for his opposite number, Frans Malherbe, to contain, let alone match. The Leinster prop made it difficult for the home side to gain any form of momentum at the breakdown. McGrath also got busy on defence which saw him make eight tackles.


There is the real world and Dave's world where his anointed never flop.

 The Bok scrum, as well as the Stormers scrum were constantly under pressure this year...end of. Julian wasn't the improvement he was made out to be.  Not necessarily 3 that's the problem,  but we still lack cohesion.  Hard to pinpoint the cause, but I'm sure Proudfoot will sort it soon.

The cause is usually the tighthead. Malherbe's  side cracked in spite of having Etzebeth  behind him....let's not miss the obvious. As for Dave he doesn't see any problems even with Coenie Oosthuizen.

 Again?  I thought it was for years - with your 'national treasure" pushed back by the  Argentina props at jet speed rate.

 Argentina...maybe, they destroyed just about every pack on the planet before the RC. But you wouldn't see Jannie being folded by McGrath like Malherbe was. Why don't you call his mother Tokkie and ask her what was wrong,...hahaha. Best young prop in the game ....neither young at 25, nor the best.

 No Jannie preferred the quick retreat and he was the same against most teams - last three scrums and went into reverse gear.   You obviously did not want to see that - hence he "National treasure" misrepresentation.    .   

Actually Jannie never played against Argentina last year Koch did, and I certainly don't recall him struggling against anybody else ....could you be so kind as to name the tests involved.

 Runnin g for cover again - What happened in 2014? 

Ah 2014, is that the best you can do tapeworm....Jannie had an off game in 2014......hahaha.
Get it through your corroded brain....Jannie is gone, Victor is gone, Jean is gone. The issue is Malherbe, Lomp  and Allende who replaced them are under performing massively.

 How many off games did he have since then? Oodles.   But then when Van der Merwe and Strauss caved in in the scrum against the Aussies - the tighthead was blamed. You blame the Tighthead fp r the poor scrumming of the Loosehead and does not even know the Hooker had a role in scrumming too - so how can one take everything you wite on this site without a bag of salt - a pinch be an under-statement?  Or is criticism of the Tighthead depending on who plays that day? 

Well ... in South Africa we have Dylan Smith, Du Toit and Marais. They have all put vd Merwe and Coenie to the sword. 
Coenie tends to hinge ... he has poor technique and a weak lower back. 
He should give up rugby altogether. He's just an awful rugby player.
 

 I am no expert on scrumming and scrumming techniques by any means but common sense dictates that when you see a tighthead with his back bent, like you often see Coenie's , then you have to know that somewhere, somehow, somebody is busy shoving his head up his arse. 

 Coenie is quality, Malherbe is the best er young tighthead  on the whole damn planet and Marcel is a power tighthead ever since he bested Sio (inconvenient fact....Sio was given a yellow against England for collapsing the scrums)

No country, has ever had better er young  props than we have now.
Got it Dave....are you taking any medications.

 Mozart 's law applies here - the Tighthead is the only prop needed in scrumming - the loosehead is a minor and the hooker has a minimal role to play.  A s per normal - he knows best - that is in his own mind.   Are you taking your stupid pills again - best advice, stay away from them - you are stupid enough and do need them.    

 Well ... I guess our front row should be Coenie, any hooker of Mike's choice other than Strauss and Marcell.
We'll dominate world rugby with that. All Blacks look out ... 
All that's missing is Lood and Jacques Du Plessis as your lock pair ... Kolisi, Arno Botha and Notshe as our back row ... and all's good with the world.
We can then have HouGat and Jantjies as our half backs ... De Allende and Kriel at center ... with Mapoe and De Jongh at wing and the incredible Le Roux at full back.
All these years ... I've been reading about these wonderful players and it never occurred to me that both Dave and Mike had a winning combination.
How could I have missed it.
Oh and we can put Goosen on the bench as backline cover ...