What has happened to the Bok nursery and the Proteas nursery

I actually think our stocks of centres have been traditionally very poor. The weakest aspect of our backs. However, we used to have physicality at centre to enforce a power game. Even as it's most blunt, we could bring our outside backs into the game. We don't have one new gen centre that can do this. Damian is routinely dominated physically. Serfontein also struggles at 12 but is by far the more complete player. Damian would be better at 13, but has no capacity to defend. He can't even read the game at a basic level. Who else is there? Now we talk of playing our best 10 at 12 and our unreliable alternative in his place. It's a mess. Since the ELVs the types of players we have produced has changed. The body types have changed too. We produce a long line of utility backs who can't quite define themselves in any particular position. They all look like wing-fullback hybrids. We don't produce 9s anymore, we always had a glut of quality at 9. We have wings who can't pass or kick well. South Africa is enamoured with runners. Mindless running. Nobody can't distribute. Every road is a dead end. Many of our best distributors were maligned because they didn't run enough. Du Preez and Morné were both heavily attacked. In fact, prior to the 2007 World Cup it was generally stated that Du Preez, Schalk, Butch, Juan, John, Monty and Os could not win the tournament. It took winning it all for South Africans to recognize the class of Du Preez. Morné was another. A great decision maker and passer. Both could pass flat like a bullet most of the width of the field off either hand. We don't have great passing backs and very poor centre play. Our wings are thoughtless track runners. I have never seen such poor personnel for a Bok side inall my life to date. We don't produce thinkers. Compare Jean, Du Preez, Fourie, Morné, Smit, Victor, Habana etc to the current gen. Intelligence is the attribute that most stands out. Damian will get beaten by the same ploy 10 times in succession in a a test and never learn. He will make the same mistakes in the following tests. Our next gen players are too passive. Eddie Jones called us out for that, he particularly called out Lambie when speaking about the Japan test. He knew to exploit that. 

Mozart

Yes I agree we have a center problem - but that is nothing new.   We have rubbish at flyhalf for a decade and the backline suffered as a result.   Morne and Jantjies - bad to worse.  Meyer said in public that our backline players do not have the required ball skills and was tuned into defense dummies - where they did not do well enough.

The deficiency is poor selection of backline players and total absence of proper backline coaching.   That leads to serious problems starting with the halfbacks and a seriously defective game plan - if what Meyer and Coetzee had could be called a game plans.

As to the loosies you were the person who advocated for slow loosies who could not do the even basic functions attached to loosie play.   Look at ball protection and recovery and the answer is zero - and zero again.   Fact is a hooker and a  center make more ball possession turnovers than our present loosies.   And tackling was also a problem due to pace deficiency.    What we have in the country went bad in 2012 and are getting wore when teams are in fact selected.

It is not production of players that is a problem - it is dunces who have to develop players and fail to do the work they are appointed to do.  The other problem is quota selection leaving SA team effectively with 2 loosies and that in itself stifle player development of suitable players.        

Againdidoos 

I could not help laughing aboiut Morne being a great passer of balls -  you must be the only dimwit thinking that,

No, I'm actually one of many. As confirmed by Verusco. Now, I can believe that, and film, or I can believe you. Oh the dilemma. 

Our player stocks deteriorated long before 2012. It took the retiring of the golden era for us to feel its effects. The game plan is one thing, the players are another. Meyer implemented many gameplans which provided options. How many could read the game well enough to make those plays? None of the next gen players, aside from Willie. Coetzee actually had a highly structured game plan. So to say he had no game plan is the very height of ignorance. Just because you can't tell what a game plan is, or identify one at all, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Let your narcissism subside and let that sink in. 

What happened: professionalism.

Listen dimness 

Morne was shyte other than kicking at goal;   He was poor in defense and I he you the tests where he failed badly since the 2013 AB test in Johannesburg,  Anybidy standing as deep in the pocket as he did cannot properly pass balls and initiate backlimne play/and virtually never attacking the gain line shows a useless one-dimentional player.   His decisionmaking was sloq - so how many tests did he lose for SA since 2012?   Everyone he played in as flyhalf against NZ and every loss against Australia/   

As to game plan there was no implementation under Meyer and Coetzee.   Watch the tests and see whether there was anything of consequence done in tests.   In the WC he went back to the 204 game of the Bulls and Burge became the stand-in flyhald getting twice as many passes as the fkyhalf from Du Preez.   Fact not fiction - bur you would never understand wat was going on since you are on Cloud 9 insofar as wugby is concerned/            .    

Yet the Bulls and Boks had such successful attacks with him as the chief decision maker in the backs. The Bulls actually had why is still today one of the two most powerful attacks in Super rugby history. Their linebreak to try ratio was the most efficient I have ever seen; almost 2:1. Morné, as verified by Verusco, contributed to more than 50% of these linebreaks. His best season was without Du Preez, so it only bolsters his case. In 2013, the Boks scored 47 tries in 12 tests. All of this in spite of Morné playing so deep and stifling backplay. You have some serious explaining to do. Remember, I have all these games, so we can review anything if needs be. I'll even upload it for you. 

Moz 

There was a brief upswing post isolation and that has been followed by a slow and steady decline that seems neverending.

Probably not a coincidence that the economy, infrastructure and education has been on the same trajectory as our sport appears to be in.

We seem to still produce the rare gem but the days of a consistent assembly line appear well and truly over. 

Only Marx and Dyanti look a cut above the rest and able to mix it with the best. 

Sad stuff really.

Eben is no Bakkies, not even a Danie. He is a very good player, but not that guy. I agree with you about Marx, he has arrived in a big way. Dyanti has certain qualities that intrigue me, he has a feel for the game. Looks more able to sum up situations. It stands out most for me. I hope he makes it. Pollard is the real deal for me, but can't quite control the game with the authority and calm of a Morné. However, he is a very long way ahead of the next best 10 in the country. I think there are usable pieces to at least maintain a respectable level of performance. Can Rassie bring it all together? I don't know. I read an article recently where he spoke about Jantjies and it was frightening. If he really believes what he said, if that is how he sees the game, we are in big, big trouble. I'm hoping there is a natural disparity between thought and actions in relation to words. 

Morne better than Pollard nutcase?    History proved otherwise - Morne became the Stade Franais bench flyhalf after being dropped 3 times as Springbok flyhalf!!!!!!!!!! LMAO  

How did Pollard fare getting the Boks outside their half in the World Cup against New Zealand? See? Morné, still the most successful 10 in Bok history. One of the best CVs in all of rugby. Nobody has replaced Morné and succeeded. Pollard aside, though his game must mature a little more. 

A tough question but for what it's worth  have a look at Oz, their cricket as well as their rugby has been in decline since the retirement of their greats. And again, West Indian cricket has been in decline for quite some time. Heavyweight boxing has never been the same since the retirement of Ali. There, another great era with the likes of Frazier, Foreman and Norton. There seems to be no natural follow on after the retirement of the greats. The last good white wing we've produced is James Small. I think the likes of  Hopwood, Danie Gerber, Viv Richards, Barry Richards and Graeme Pollock is a once in a life time happening never to be repeated. 

Interesting article here offering a theory about at least Australia's sporting decline. In a nutshell, he lays the blame at the feet of ill-advised strength and conditioning training, the talent discarded as a result (talented sportsmen who refuse to submit to those regimens generally fall out of the system) and the amount of surgeries players already have at a young age these days.

Click to read.

And another aside...rugby now, without a doubt, favors dumb muscle over smaller, truly sharp and skilled players. How many skilled players are getting lost because they can't compete with the creatine gobbling brutes that now dominate the sport?

The level of training in South Africa is poor. Very poor. As a culture, South Africans are the most passive people I have very seen. They don't change, they aren't intellectually curious. There's no zeal or drive to learn and improve. When I look at the greats of the recent past and the players nowadays, the difference in physical prowess isn't great, neither skill, but intelligence? There is an enormous gulf between them. Think if that Du Preez try against Wales setup by Fourie. When last die you see the Boks score a try like that. Our coaches are relying more and more on pattern efficiency within the game plan because the players can't read the game and don't learn from experience. Put yourself in Damian's shoes, it's 2015 against Austria, you get burned on a place on your inside. You'd feel embarrassed, wouldn't you? Do you fall for it again? You likely wouldn't. Damian on the other hand got beaten in the same way all game. No adjustments, no increase in effort, intensity, energy. He sums up the next gen of players in that one game. 

Under Coetzee the Boks were very predictable within their set patterns and plays. Some say there was no gameplan, they in fact did. They simply didn't have any life flexibility outside of it. Passivity affects what a coach has to work with, and Eddie Jones identified that as a weakness when preparing Japan for South Africa. He named Lambie specifically. 

I agree with the idea that there is an ebb and flow to the level of star quality within each generation, but if coached properly very young, this shouldn't be a problem. South Africans need more intensive effort to read the game correctly, but it can be done. Not enough is being done to maximize the talent we have. It also doesn't help when your best players aren't always selected. SARugby squandered Frans and Brussow. Imagine if New Zealand hadn't played Nonu and McCaw the past 10 years. It would have dramatically impacted the team. New Zealand doesn't always have the best players in each position, but they make what they have work for them because they are proactive. Cruden and Barrett would have ended up like Jaco and Jantjies, failing to really make a go of fit. 

There are undoubtedly other reasons, these are just things that really standout for me. 

"Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them" quote, unquote.

I think the abovementioned players were legends in their respective sport, as a matter of fact I believe they would have been legends in any era regardless of coaching. How could anyone coach a future legend, no, Jan Ellis and the likes were masters of their own fate. 

There's two things that can't be coached, one is speed and the other is the X Factor.

"Interesting theory Denny. Lots of other examples, look at US tennis.....Budge, Tony Trabert, Pancho Gonzales, Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe, Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, Sampras and then nothing!"

Same can be said of the golden era of golf. Player, Nicklaus and Palmer - WOW!