What is the success rate for new players?

Well let's review the newbies since RWC2011

Willie ....yes

Movovo...no

Taute....no

JJ....no

Serfontein...not yet

Goosen....not yet

van Zyl...no

Oosthuizen...yes

Malherbe....not yet

Adriaanzen....no

Strauss...yes

J Kruger....no

Potgieter....no

Etzebeth....yes

Steph....not yet

Coetzee....no

Arno...not yet

Kolisi....not yet

I might have missed a few. But of the young players who made the Bok team after RWC 2011, we have 4 that have proven they can play at top level and hold onto a Bok slot. Of those 4 only 3 are starters because Bissie is preferred to Strauss. So we have 3 affirmed starters.

Six are in the category of not having played enough to either confirm or deny their candidacy......maybe we could expect half or three to become fixtures.

And 8 have had plenty of chances, but ultimately failed totally or been replaced with better players.

If we say less than 50% of our newbies will succeed that strikes me as generous, given the above facts. Which makes a settled team so crucial. No team can win introducing say 7 players a year and likely having 4 failures. You need to have a core of at least 11 players and take the risk with (say) 4 introductions a year.

Well I have to disagree with you......JJ proved twice the 13 that established Fourie did and if Meyer does not re-instate JJ at 13, he should be sacked.

Taute has played all of 3 tests and then got injured - 3 tests is no measure and of the 3, he had two good tests.

v/Zyl has had less test time than Taute and if our coach had any brains he would have played v/Zyl ahead of Pienaar.

Adriaanse has played as much test rugby as v/Zyl and hardly a good selection.

Coetzee is part of the Bok 23, hardly a failure

Much of this has to do with the lack of investment by our poor coaches - instead we have these clowns selecting washed up hasbeens like Fourie and Bakkies  

Taute is set to play 15 so chances are very good that he could become our incumbent 15, given Meyer is a big fan of his.

Given du Preez and Pienaar are in the 30's there is a good chance v/Zyl could become our incumbent in a season or two.

JJ was a wing now successfully converted to 13 and proved our best attacking prospect at 13 since Gerber. The lad has only just started his 13 journey.....there is plenty more to come.......its not an easy transition......look what little impression Smith has made since his move

Mozart

You cannot assess objectively assess any players who have less than 60 minutes of playing time and come up with any realistic forecast of future performances.   You also mix up players a lot -  and left out some of Meyer's choice morsels like Werner Kruger and Greyling. 

Realistic observers would realise that some players will fail to make the step up to international rugby - but then there are others that have been around for years on international level and failed badly as well.   The latter ran out of steam or shoud never have been in the Springbok set up at all.  

As much as you might differ. all of the Steyns, De Jongh, Hougaard, Pienaar, Alberts, Steenkamp and Jannie du Plessis performed way below par this year,   They were Bok regulars.   At times they were the players that cost the Boks dearly in tests they lost or struggled to win.

Of the long list of players you gave above -

*   most of the young regulars with ample playing time did not fail (Etzebeth, Le Roux. Strauss and Oosthuizen);

*   only one regular did fail (Juandre Kruger);

*   some had little playing time showed real promise (Goosen, Serfontein, Du Toit, Malherbe, Arno Botha); whilst

*   the rest were peripheral players that Meyer for some reason or other selected and utilized as bench players or like in the case of Taute used out of position at center.  

Matter of fact most of your list are in the last group of players who had virtually no game time and any assessment cannot realistically be made.  Personally I think most of them were selection errors on the part of Meyer        

I know you are trying your normal - namely to single out newbies who fail - but what about the regulars who failed and performed worse than any of the newbies with adequate playing time?  

Mozart

What about the failures of 2011 and before and was retained in the team?   You are very selective in attacking most of the younger players as per normal,   Your comments on the too soon group being iffy shows your prejudice already. 

You gave put 18 players on your list.   Of those you mentioned 2 having had enough game time.   So lets look at the other 16 you dealt with.   

*   4 got pass marks according to you;

*   6 are "not yet" - but according to your latest comments "iffy"

*   4 had one game or less game time;

*   you mention 2 - but Kruger and Mvovo also had adequate game time.

Taute was played out of position at center - one major flaw by Meyer in his selections.  Your assessment of Coetzee is basically based on prejudice without regard to performance.   When he did play he was good enough not to let the team down - like was done by too many of the experienced players.   I would much rather have a player who works hard continuously during games in the team than he 20 minute players like  Alberts.   

So according to you 4 of the players with adequate game time failed, 4 of the players with less than 1 game failed, 6 players you have already condemned if your latest comments are anything to go by are bound to fail. 

I think that of the rrally assessable players 4 passed the test and 3 failed.   Of the experienced players there were in fact 8 failures of prior to 2011 players and that is the point.   You cannot point fingers only at new players as deficient - you gave to look at ALL the players.          

 Mozart

I look at all players without prejudice.   The real match losers against the AB's were mostly the experienced players.    The majority of the players were from prior to 2011 and so were the majority of the failures.   That make this kind of threat so one-sided,  highly subjective and not a real objective evaluation of the situation. 

You keep missing the point....but if that makes you happy, who am I to spoil your day.