What the Bok side should be

 So Willie's ok ? Cool .But Why Bismark ahead of strauss ?

I'd pick Cheslin Kolbe in place of Willie Le Roux. 
After Saturday's game, Cornall Hendriks is the first choice wing and my selection of Kolbe would mean Willie and Habana are fighting it out for the #11 jumper . . . and looking over their shoulders at Seabelo Senatla!

 Who does Kolbe play for ?Hendricks is a bit of a find .

Cheslin Kolbe is playing in the Currie Cup for Western Province.
I wasn't a big fan of Cornall Hendriks until yesterday. I'm convinced now!

 Hougaard had a mare, he's not up to the task. Move on from him, Faf De Klerk is the most promising scrum half we have.

Damn right Willie would be one of my first names on the list he is our best player and given the way he plays he will always be susceptible to the odd mistake. 
Bismark is the best hooker in the game,  Strauss the second best. I don't buy into him having lost form.
Hendricks is good on attack his defence is suspect at times. When Senatla is back he would be my first choice along with JP

 Oh bullshit there was nothing wrong with Hougaard who was clearly playing under instruction to kick. If you could not see that you should not be commenting on the game.
And by his standards, his box kicks were actually good but should never have happened.  Hougaard needs to play to his strengths and clueless Meyer should know that.

 Dave
Soory but you are not seeing straightinsofar as Hougaard is co9ncerned.   His game on Saturday was a nightmare of incompoetentkicking and wrong decision making.   Hougaard never used to eb a kicking scrummie - he is one now.   When he used to kick his balls too many were charged dow - when he kicks now the radar is out and being inaccurate the kicks are just means to hand over possession to the opposing team.
The fact is that he was one of the weak links in the team on Saturday.  Now why would I say that - lets analyze the play of the two players concerned:-
Pienaar
Handled the ball     -     30 timmesKicked                   -        5 timesPassed the ball        -     To Pollard   -  14  times                            -     To others   -   10  timesCarried the ball        -     1 time 
Hougaard
Handled the ball     -     33 timmesKicked                   -        8 timesPassed the ball        -     To Pollard   -    5  times                            -     To others   -   18  timesCarried the ball        -     2 times 
What happened to the ball with Hougaard's attitude?   Does he realize that there is a backline outside of him and that the flyhalf is the first recipient?   Apparently not.   Pienaar passed the ball 24 times  (80% of the balls handled by him and 58% of those passes went to Pollard) - he passed back to loosies and other players enough times to make sure there was variation in play.   Hougaard passed the ball 23 times (70% of the balls hndled by him and only 22% of those passes went to Pollard) - very little variation in play - he starved the flyhalf from ball possession, effectively nullifying the backline.
There hs been really serious criticism of his performance on Saturday - and with reason. as well.  

 Mike you are speaking complete and utter shit I saw the game I don't need your pathetic take on Hougaard.  Yes he kicked too much that's because he was under INSTRUCTION to fuck me wake up man.
He made one poor decision when he kicked instead of passing and that's a fact....so don't give me your ignorant shit about kicking and wrong decision making.
In fact his box kicks were good if that is what his coach wanted him to do they were well weighted and directed -FACT.
Do we want to see him kicking, no we don't, do you think he wants to kick, no he does not - why is he kicking then - because his coach told him to - get that into your thick skull. It's that obvious 

 Dave
How can you be sure he got instructions -
*   to make the aimless kicks he launched;and*   not to pass the ball to Pollard.
Even if he plays acording to instructions - there need to e variation of play on his part and there was never anything of the sort.  You criticize Morne for the same reason - a robot playing according to instructions - but when Hougaard does it - there is an excuse.
Most of his box kicks were ineffective - too far ahead to be effectively followed up - and therefor a real means to hand over ball possession to the AB's.   
   

 Um because he is not a kicking scrum half every one knows that - it's called obvious 

His box kicks were sh!t Dave. "they were well weighted and directed -FACT". No they weren't. They were too deep and the All Blacks launced a 40 - 60 meter counter attack off virtually every one of them because no Bok chaser could get anywhere near where the kick came down. Those kicks were only well weighted if a well weighted box kick is supposed to beat the chasers by about 10 meters.

 Oh what utter shit virtually ever kick be it a box kick or other seldom finds space or ends up in pressure being applied on the receiver. The majority of kicks by anyone are easily fielded and returned with as little impact. 
Hougaard ' s box kicks were fine

 Dave
Sorry - but Pakie iand other commentatoors are correct here - you got it wrong.   Remember one thing though.  Hougaard was scrummie for the Bulls and they routinely pass the ball to their loosies and not their useless flyhalf M orne Steyn - so that may be the resn for Hougaard ignoring Pollard as a routine explanation.      

 Dave
Sorry - but Pakie and other commentatoors are correct here - you got it wrong.   Remember one thing though.  Hougaard was scrummie for the Bulls and they routinely pass the ball to their loosies and not their useless flyhalf Morne Steyn - so that may be the reaso n for Hougaard ignoring Pollard as a routine explanation.      

 I am so glad that you have squat say in the Springbok side...selections and what ever else.

You and me both FA the single minded arrogance in opinion smacks of being delusional.  

Well there is a great disconnect in cause and effect.....

The Boks lost ergo Jean, Pienaar, Jannie, Victor and Louw failed. Hell maybe Habana failed as well.

The Boks weren't out of the game so Serfontein, Pollard, Coetzee and even Marcel who was on for 3 minutes were great.
Players who are not contentious like Vermeulen, Etzebeth, Strauss, Willie....presumably did okay.

If you want to know how a player did, just look at their grouping.  

 Mozart
There are various factors to take into consideration and not only the impression of the public in general.   Lets look at the performances of individul players and structure our comments accordingly:-
Jean de Villiers  - showed nothing in attack and had some defense problems.   Definitely need to buck up.
Ruan Pienaar -  Had a better game than normal - but is out of contention for the rest of the year.
Jannie du Plessis - Very good in the first three scrums and then went into reverse gear - is he really fit enough to last to halftime?   Outside of scrumming he was poor in defense and did zero in ball carries.
Victor Matfield -  there are positives - his line out play was good until the end when he fumbled a ball in the line out that should have been a clean take with a view to a driving maul.   Other positive - he made enough tackles - but the tackle quality is poor and there are too many missed tackles as well.   Negartive - not physiclly strong enough to really be a factor in Tight 5 play and he cannot carry balls as a result.  
Francois Louw - was injured early in the game and carried on until halftime.   maybe his injury bothered him - hence the deficient performance.
Jan Serfontein -  acceptable defense, but showed zero in attacking play.
Marcell van der Merwe - to little gaeme time to assess reasonably - but in the last scrum the Boks with Nyakane and Van der Merwe destroyed the AB scrum.   Should have replaced Jannie much, much earlier.  
Francois Hougaard -   definitely a below par performance. 
You cannot just group players the way you did because of some peoples say-so, you have to look objectively at all aspects of play.     

Actually if you look at the last scrums.....our pack got the shove on the line to turn the ball over. If you look at Marcel his head was totally popped out. In the next scrum the ref let play go on, but he was on the deck, Malherbe  style.

I'm perfectly willing to change my mind on his scrumming, but it will take more than that.

Mozart 
Balls as per normal.   Your knowledge of scrumming is biased and not of any real value. I described the situation objectively - and sai Jannie lasted a few scrums and then went bad.   I went on to say Van der merwe was good enough in scrumming - buit should have had longer playing time.
What happens in scrumming?   You are clueless.  You blame Malherbe for scrums going down - but who other than you sauys he alone is to blame?   Definitely not the refs who penalized opposing players more than they did Malherbe.   When an opposing prop and hooker pops up first what happened to the other prop and hooker?
jannie is good enough to start - but he does not last longer than 20 minutes in any game anymore.   Is that good enough?   

 Ha ha ha so his team mates where high fiving him because his head popped. ....what utter shit.....Marcel destroyed his opposite number. 
As for Jean, Pienaar, Matfield and Louw they were shit.
The best players were youngsters Willie, Hendricks, Serfontein, Etzebeth, Coetzee and Vermeulen. Plus Marcel's 3 minutes were huge