Under Performing Boks

 I'm at odds whether its the right call to have Bakkies in the team. In one hand Bakkies have been extremely dissapointing in the last couple of years amongst other seniour boks. So when I hear names such as bakkies, Dupreez, Fourie being thrown about I don't know to smile or frown. On the other hand I am very happy if these players are better than the ones we have available and can play at their best. So far Meyer has'nt justified the continued selection of Hougaard, Steyn, Kirchner, Potgieter, Spies even though they have played for him for many years. These are the players that should make a huge difference and should stand out under Meyer games plan, but it hasn't been the case. 

So rather than bringing in veterans with serious question marks, use the players in your squad. Move Alberts to lock. It worked for the sharks and it should work for the boks. Not sure who our props are in the squad.

Based on what we have my starting 8 would be 1. Beast 2. Strauss 3. Greyling (No other choice) 4. Alberts 5. Bekker 6. Louw 7. Coetzee 8. Vermeulen

As an Ice(for all you SA's) Hockey fan I find all this adding and subtracting players very interesting. In Hockey Tournaments it's not allowed. You pick your team and that's that. The replacements that you have picked are the ones you have to use.

So, to me, All this adding players is very strange. I would think it's not good as well for the continuity, and structure of the team.

Corn, I could very well see that being the starting 8 this weekend, as Bakkies fitness is a big question. Could see him as a replacement late in the game, and IF it's close, his experience will hopefully help settle the Boks.

 canrugby, rugby is played for 40 minutes each way and most of the 15 players play for the full 80 minutes.

In ice hockey the game playing time is 60 minutes made up of 4 x 15 minute periods and players are substituted every few minutes. They are padded to high heaven and very few if any play the full 60 minutes.

The game is overated and to expensive for local families to attend pro games....most ticket holders are corporate held/sponsered tickets.

Rugby is inexpensive, flowing, entertaining and full contact.

Since the introduction of pro rugby the subs have increased as have the rules, in the old amature days only three subs were allowed and those players who came on as subs in an internation test.

Also those sub playe3rs who took to the field were never granted a test cap as is done today...hence you get players who have over 100 test rugby caps.

The bottom line all sport today is all about the almighty dollar/rand/pound irrespective of the outcome.

Get it???

Expat Saffer in Western Canada.

Ya, I get the fact it's all about the money. I feel I'm one of the few on here that does, actually.

So you're saying Hockey is easier, physically, to play then rugby, and therefore national rugby teams are allowed to just add and subtract as they feel necessary?

Watching the collisions(tackles) live in icehockey must be pretty good. The ground is solid ice so must be intense.

Falling over when iceskating is bad enough,  but Getting bashed over to get slammed on the ice or getting hit by the puck must be somewhat painful. 

The speed the players are moving at is intense as well. There's a reason for the padding....you, and some other people can see that.......

I had tickets for the St Louis Blues for a few seasons, right on the ice. I can attest to the ferocity of the collisions and the way the players  pound into the Boards.

Nice, Moz. Blues were a good team last season. I find people who don't really like hockey change their opinion when they see a game live. TV doesn't really do it any justice.

So can you answer my question about just being able to add and subtract players at will? I find it strange how national teams are allowed to do this during Tournaments.

Oh, Arthur John, there's not 4 - 15 minute periods in hockey. It's 3-20 minute ones. :)