What about Hougaard at 9?

So where are we now - blame everyone but the player for being piss poor - and then say we may yet be rid of Pienaar.  I think so too - but the replacement will be Reinach - not Hougaard.

• 17 Feb 2014
 
• Follow Ryan
• More stories by Ryan

Even at this early stage of the season, Francois Hougaard has given Vodacom Bulls and Bok fans little to be optimistic about, writes RYAN VREDE. 

At Kings Park, the Bulls needed their big players, Hougaard among them, to deliver a performance worthy of their standing in the game. What they got was a limp offering that belied their talent. Ominously, I often wrote the same line about Hougaard in matches of this ilk in 2013.

He is an immense talent, one I've celebrated in this column and in SA Rugby magazine. However, he is betraying his talent and needs an intervention.

I've consistently called for that to take the form of a positional shift to wing, where he has played his best rugby. His performance on Saturday didn't change my view on this. In the aftermath of the 31-16 demolition job the Sharks put on them, Nick Mallett delivered a scathing assessment of Hougaard's performance.

'The kicking game of Hougaard was poor and he was slow to the breakdown and struggling to get back into the role of No 9,' he said.

In terms of astute observations from the gifted analyst, it wasn't his most groundbreaking. But Mallett's tone conveyed the frustration that would resonate with many in the South African rugby fraternity. 

The simple truth is that he isn't good enough a scrumhalf, technically, to drive the Bulls

In hindsight, it's not hard to see why Hougaard was consistently overlooked as a scrumhalf for junior provincial representation in his school days. He caught the eye playing in a training match against the SA Schools side, operating at centre, no less. Yet there was something about him that elicited an investment from coaches, none more so than Heyneke Meyer, who brought him to the Bulls with a view to him succeeding Fourie du Preez. So good was his training form that they accommodated him on the wing, where he outshone far more established South African wingers, including Bryan Habana, in 2009.

But for the past two years Hougaard has been a shadow of that player. Certainly injuries and personal struggles (he was a close friend of Reeva Steenkamp, who was shot by Oscar Pistorius a year ago) have contributed to this, as has the waning potency of the Bulls' pack. However, that alone cannot account for the severity of his struggles.

The simple truth is that he isn't good enough a scrumhalf, technically, to drive the Bulls, who, on the evidence of their tactical approach against the Sharks, will continue to rely heavily on the kicking game of their No 9.

In a Springbok context, he certainly isn't among the top three scrumhalves. In any case, Meyer considers him firstly a wing, then a scrumhalf, having seen enough to know that he won't make the cut as a Test No 9 against the elite teams. That said, if Meyer were able to work with Hougaard on a daily basis, I suspect we'd see a very different player. 

Tellingly for Bulls and their fans, though, the degree to which Hougaard can improve as a scrumhalf is limited. What he can offer them as a winger isn't. Yet it is unlikely that the Bulls will take the decision to change his position. Indeed Hougaard has stressed consistently that he wants to establish himself as a scrumhalf. So we are likely to have to watch one of the most naturally gifted and instinctive players continue to struggle.

I hope for his sake and for the health of the South African game that my opinion will be embarrassed in the months ahead, that Hougaard somehow settles at scrumhalf and shows why Meyer thought him good enough to succeed Du Preez. But I doubt that view will be shown up as flawed. 

It pains me to criticise Hougaard's performances. He is my type of player in the sense that I'm taken by the X factor, an unrelenting work ethic and a healthy measure of swagger. But my admiration for him cannot mask the obvious – he is currently not the player the Bulls need him to be. As a scrumhalf, it is unlikely that he ever will be.

Nick Mallett: 'Hougaard was poor'

I agree with the above article.   Hougaard was moved the scrumhalf - same as Spies was moved to no 8 - and in both cases the moves ultimately never produced the real goods.

Wonder what Saffex is going to say ab out this one?  

 Saffex

Whether you liked it or not -

*   there has been a problem with Hougaard since 2012; and

*   there was a problem with Steyn last year 0 nmatter of fact since his return from France.

Hougaard 

First of all ;et us look what Mallett said about Hougaard:-

'The kicking game of Hougaard was poor and he was slow to the breakdown and struggling to get back into the role of No 9,'  

In response you said the following:-

"Mallett only had issues with his kicking game, which is fair enough......his kicking was a mixed bag and not a strength."

Why did you leave out a critical component of Mallett's comment as to "he was slow to the breakdown and struggling to get back into the role of No 9"

I have to admit that in the 2012 tests his game was way to poor for Meyer to continue with him at 9 - at that stage his kicking game was a major problem - he got charged down because he was too slow in execution.   That slowness in execution was also in evidence in his passing game.   

He was moved to the wing position for a good reason and the summing up above is clear - against the English team it was clear that Hougaard was struggling badly = and Meyer saw enough to move him away from the scrummie position and to the wing.   Meyer would never have done that if Hougaard's  service was satisfactory.  

You alone thought otherwise.   It was with interest that I watched the subsequent Bulls CC game against the Sharks - where Hougaard returned to the scrummie position.  He had a shocker - and the opposing scrummie was the same one that played so much better than him on Saturday - it was Reinach who had one of his earlier games for the Sharks.   Let me give  you just a few examples - 

*  Reinach tackled him and in the process robbed the ball from him;

*  Hougaard was repeatedly caught in possession after mauls;

*  He kicked the  ball from virtually the same position twice - and both was charged down - one leading to a Sharks try;

*  He "rolled: the ball out instead of passing it and the ball was picked up by the Sharks and another Sharks try followed.

The above was as I said a shockingly poor performance - and the one on Saturday showed elements of the same deficiencies.   But some of the mentioned happened - abn the service to his backline was slow and ineffective.

Steyn

There can be no argument about it - Steyn was in a poor physical condition since his return from France.   He was clearly overweight and slowed down and his only contributions in the tests were to crashball.  In two cases he was required to make relieving kicks - the efforts were pathetic.   The kicks rolled along the ground and it placed the whole Springbok side off-side.   His performances were nothing to write home about and contributed to the poor functioning of the Springbok backline.

After his injury in Septenber 2012 - he returned to training in January 2012 in an atrocious physical condition.   He was already overweight at his return from France, but he really was extremely fat and unfit when he returned to the January 2014 training camp weighing 118 kgs.   They tried to get his weight down to a reasonable figure - but never succeeded with that in 2013.  He was in a shocking physical form and his performances started of against the Cheetahs - where he had a reasonable game.  The next four games he got progressively worse every game.

The battle against his fat was not going well - and he remained in poor physical form throughout 2013,

However - he came back to the game on Saturday weighing 106 kgs.   What was evident in his performance on Satirday that for the first time since his return from France he was fot and playing accordingly.   He definitely is not the FAT Frans he was known as throughout KwaZulu-Natal last year.  It is apparent that White took him n hand and he succeeded to get Steyn back to the best physical form he was in since 2012 - the fat bulges were  gone and everyone saw  a different Francois Steyn on Saturday. 

In that form - he is an asset.   In the physical form he was In 2012 and 2103 he was n rugby terms a waste of space.  

Saffex

Maybe it will work - but I have a feeling it won't.  A scrummie  should play on instinctive game - not really according to strict instructions.  Reading of the game is an essential and I am not sure that Hougaard is an instinctive scrummie.

Be it as it may - he is not at present in line for Springbok selection and do not think that unless there is a massive increase in performance capacity - he will be in line in future .