What the doom and gloom types miss in Meyer's record

Sure it's been a horrible season, but it was to be expected. All of 10 of our 15 starters against Australia in the RWC, were not available for the Rugby Championship. That's massive......a bigger loss of talent at one fell swoop than we have had since coming back to international rugby.

With that in mind, it's something of a miracle that we have been competitive in every test....narrowly losing away against NZ and Oz and beating Oz at home.

There were three flies in the ointment. ...the dead rubber draw against the Poms, the draw away to the Bargies and the loss to NZ at home. The two draws we can ascribe to taking our foot off the gas, when our opponents were highly motivated. I don't believe they mean much.....the Boks were also first into Bargie Land  and there was a lot of learning involved in a particularly challenging venue. Forget about that.

The big loss of the year was against NZ at home, when we were ahead at the half and dominated territory and possession. Jantjies had a timid second half and the defence of some of our rookies was not up to standard. Clearly Taute wasn't ready for the big time, at centre. He is now being moved to 15, and the much more competitive Lambie will be at pivot. Much better!

I think Meyer has made some real selection blunders.  Trying to please everybody, he has rushed some youngsters too fast. And there were guys like Mvovo, Potgieter and Greyling who simply aren't test quality. But his teams have been technically sound. There were no embarrassments in the scrums or lineouts. A clear deficiency on the ground was resolved when Louw came in for Coetzee. And the defence still needs some work.

But in PdV's first year and throughout Destroyli's tenure, we weren't even in many games. By contrast there were periods in every test we played this year, when victory seemed very plausible. Meyer's teams have never looked inept, just a bit underbaked. It's about what we should have expected after losing 10 starters. Things will improve.

Mozart

You have a few valid points - but started of with a very controversial statement about 10 of the WC players not being available to Meyer.   Very true - but they should not have been available in the first instance for the WC campaign - at east 7 of the 10 should have been replaced in the Springbok team by 2010.   They were over the hill by then - they were playing on reputation only.

If there was a proper player renewal programme in place in respect of players getting past their "sell- by" dates after 2007 Meyer would not have to start one of his own - especially since some of the players that could still qualify for selection were injured.    

No - you went further and blamed the loss in the Soweto test on a few youngsters.   That was one test - what about the rest?   In the rest of the tests the previously established Springboks were on the whole ridiculously poor - the worst one being Morne Steyn - whose only real asset ever was his goalkicking.   That dipped below 50%.   Other poor performances was put in by Hougaard, De Villiers, Olivier, Kirchner, Spies and Francois Steyn.   The form of other of the established players was motly erratic and they did not contribute what they should have in the tests played.   On the other hand an established and talented player like Lambie was basically ignored by Meyer.

Meyer started off badly - he first try to get Mattfield back as a player - the latter was way past his "sell-by" date.  Then it was the turn of Fourie Du Preez - also a misadventure.   The hankering after the "golden oldies" continued throughout the period he was coach - the latest example being Steenkamp and the efforts made to get back Mujati.   The problem was the form of players like Steenkamp was not a factor in this process.

Instead of looking at the form of players in Super 15 - Meyer chose another route in his renewal program which ultimately was basically a disaster.  The Bulls was not the top SA team this year in Super 15 - yet they  provided the bulk of the younger players brought in by Meyer.   Only two younger players from franchises other than the Bulls - namely Etzebeth and Coetzee - was initially selected by Meyer and those were the relative success stories in the renewal programme.   The younger Bulls players preferred by Meyer was on the whole a real disaster story.    Lets start in this regard with Greyling and Werner Kruger - two of the worst props in Super 15 with the worst penalty record against them - his first choice of bench selections.   They both failed miserably.   J Kruger was th next key player he selected - basically also a flop when considering the fact that a youngster like Du Toit got the better of him in the line-outs in the Bulls game against the Sharks.   Then there was Potgieter - about as senseless as they come.   Engelbrecht was another Bulls disaster.

You previously mentioned that the Springbok selection resembles a "revolving door".   Never a truer word spoken - the door was to be used by Bulls players - of the 15 Bulls players who played in their Super 15 team this year 13 went through that revolving door.

I mentioned earlier that Meyer kargely ignored Super 15 form in the selection of players.   Lets take a further example about that.   The Stormers ended up top of the log in Super 15 - and eventually won the CC.   However, the Stormers had the worst try scoring record of all the Super 15 teams - they did not get a single bonus point for tries scored.   This was largely the result of poor backline play - the key failures being their center combination.   Yet that same combination is now in the Springbok team.    

I did not mention Jantjies as an original new selection - he is really not worth mentioning in any meaningfull discussion of rugby - he is just not up to standard.   The disaster was further enhanced when the atrociously bad form of Morne Steyn forced a change at flyhalf and as a result of injuries to Pietersen and Francois Steyn.

Meyer was virtually forced to select a player like Goosen at flyhalf. move the failed Hougaard to wing and bring in Taute at center.   That worked well in the Aussie test - bar the fact that Hougaard made a mess on defence.   The player Meyer had on the bench as center was De Jongh - whose only contribution in that test was a badly- fluffed try scoring opportunity.   Just one issue here - Taute came back from injury and had one half of a match for the Lions and was then rushed into the Springbok team.   It now emerges - and I doubt not that he said it before - that he in any event prefer to play at full back.   The real problem started when Goosen was injured and replaced by Jantjies.   The latter was so bad that he was in the lasy 25 minutes of the game was ignored by his teammates.  In any event the Soweto test was a real disaster of failures on defence in the backline and Taute got the blame for that.   However, he was not the only player to be blamed - the lisy of backline defensive lapses covered Jantjies, De Villiers, Habana and Kirchner - who at stages in the game missed crucial tackles as well.

Let me say that I qouted tha bove to indicate that Meyer's main problem is a seriously defective player selection process NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCES .   That no doubt is augmented by seriously defective assistant coaches picked by him. 

IT IS EASY TO LAY THE BLAME FOR FAILURES AT THE DOOR OF ONE OR TWO NEW PLAYERS - AND IGNORE THE FAILURES OF OTHER ESTABLISHED PLAYERS AND THEN SAY THE POOR PERFORMANCES OF THE SPRINGBOKS IN TESTS THIS YEAR REVOLVES AROUND THE LOSS OF THE SOWETO TEST BY TWO YOUNSTERS IN THE TEAM.    THEY NO DOUBT  CONTRIBUTED TO THE LATTER LOSS - BUT MEYER'S POOR SELECTIONS NOT BASED ON MERIT WAS THE KEY  FACTOR  THROUGOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS.

People talk about the game plan - but there was no real game plan in evidence in all the tests as a whole.   There ws some glimpses of a plan emerging in the test against the Aussies - there was not evidence of any real plan in the rest of the tests played thus far this year.   If there is in fact any plan in place - then it was negated by the key players Meyer keeps on selecting.

Meyer thus far failed as a coach because of a clueless approach to player selection - end of story.       

When one thinks of all this objectively then Moz is correct. With so many players no longer available and a new coaching staff there was always going to be a sifting period.

Meyer hs not enjoyed the best of luck. The whole season turned on the Dunedin test. Had that been won as it obvioulsy should have been (but for extremely poor goal kicking) many a mouth would have been shut. Again, the away game against Oz could have been won if goal kicking had been working. Very poor goal kicking alone has decided the results this season. W have I think a 50% success rate.

Now all this has provided  the anti Meyer ranters a chance to air their unbalanced  and nonsensical assessments of him as a coach. They claim Meyer is useless and we have ou snapster making a comment (that is sure to haunt him for many a year) that we shoul get ou pdv back!!. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha ou snapster has finally cracked or is on crack!!!!!

Mike please understand we did not have an over the hill side in the last WC. We enjoyed 80% possession etc against Oz and would undoubtedly have given them one of their biggest hidings ever save for BL suspending the laws of rugby and getting fired by the IRB as a consequence - all of which has been explained before. Your idea that thw WC side was over the hill is LUDICROUS!

Off course Moz is correct.. But that won't dissuade the Doom and Gloom types, so there is no point in the argument anymore. the doom and Gloom types will Critisize any coach that comes no matter who, they will fond fault.

Beeno

Where did we end up in the 2011 WC.   After struggling badly against Wales and with below par performances in the other Round Robin matches - we lost against the Aussies.   You blame the referee - but if we coukld do zilch with 80% possession of the ball - then what was wrong?   We did not measure up to expectations and I still blame that on over-the hill players - irrespective of what you say about it.   However, you missed my point completely - if indeed they were not over the hill entirely then - they definitely were in 2012.

My key problem centers around two main issues -

*   the atrocious performances by  players involved in the 2011 WC;

*   ignoring of players of quality by Meyer; and

*   atrocious selections by Meyer not based on performances by players.

He constantly missed key indications like performances in Super 15 this year and kept on picking players that failed in that series.   The question is WHY?

I am not all doom and gloom - but with Meyer around I am not optimistic either.   If he can get over some hang ups and select players that can implement what I think he is trying to achieve - he may yet succeed.   If he keeps on what he is doing at present in selecting failures in previous tests and on Super 15 level  - and that include some of the failed "senior" players  -  then we really need a new coach.  Matter of fact people keep on saying his selections of younger players is a problem - but some supports the norm that "once a Springbok - always a Springbok".   That obviously is utter bullshit - to put it mildly - his constant faith in failed senior players is even worse.   

I would have supported Meyer always if he really started with a process to assemble a team based on merit.  Some of the new players would have failed - but others would have succeeded.   However, senior players who failed miserably should be dealt with on the same basis as other failures in the team.   If we really start with merit selections we might have failed in tests this year - but is likely to be much better next year.    If we refuse to recognise failures - then next year would also be a disaster.

Meyer should wake up to that fact - end of story.

to me the biggest area of concern has been the game pattern and player development. that is were the main focus should be. as with almost all mike's post i concur on all of them as his points are relevant and to the point

in regards to the RWC 2011...the only game that we played more dynamicly was against he aussies. that was after we nearly lost to wales and samoa playing a convervative negative style of play. i must admit since they moved frans steyn (after i posted hordes of posts about how he can change our side) to 12.

the biggest issue that we all are up and arms about is the concept that the defence only forward obsessed game plan is somehow linked to winning rugby and how the negative mentality has become part of the majority of bok coaches since readmission. as the game has changed in that aspect we as the boks has not moved of changed to the changes in rules nor playing standards on the national level. that is the real problem. meyer in terms of technical abilty is the best but his biggest problem is more mental in terms of how we as a country and a rugby nation should brand ourselves and how the game needs to be developed and moved forward.

making statements that we dont have the backs to compete with the likes of NZ and co just shows the level of ignorance and inablity to really address the real issues standing in our way of true domination. the boks as a rugby power has always been a country that produces world class forwards and we defend well as that is part of our rugby mentality so does it not make more sense to develop our blantant lacking attacking edge and build greater and better backline players ?????. is that not a coaches main view to build a rounded team that is able to compete on all fronts instead on one or 2 ????

the AB on the other hand have a natural attacking ability due to there game pattern but has also added a nother string to there bow and builded a great defence as well. that shows the level and attention to detail that we need to follow. being one dimensional is not a guide line in being a dominant winning team.

when meyer took the job he knew of the uphill task he faced so even more so he should chosen a suport team/stadd  that would have made the process a lot easier for him. there has been a lot of injuries that i do agree with but as we saw in the super rugby comp the amount of depth that SA has is so deep that the players that are out will have a tough time being chosen.

selecting a non expierenced forwards coach and rubbish no name backline coach and a second string defence coacn and not even selecting a attacking/skills coach has put meyer in a whirlpool and he has painited a target on his own back due his own inablity to think outside of his own comfort zone.

the likes of carel du plessis carlos specer ext would have done wonders with the backline we have but true to form meyer is sticking to his guns and it might cost him his job at the end.

without a fecther and the lack of cohesion at the breakdown the irish i am quite sure will target us there as most teams has this year. i expect another slog and grind and i wont be surprized that we get piped at the posts but the irish

meyer is fast proving that being an outstanding super rugby coach means nothing compared to being an international coach, a transition that meyer hasnt yet fully completed given his stuborn selection and game tactics.

IMO losing a agme to the All Blacks and the wallabies means nothing in the bigger picture, the three SANZAR teams will ALWAYS be a thorn in each others backsides, like ive told my fellow kiwis many times beofre, we will see the Boks and the wallabies pull another whitewash on the All Blacks in our lifetime, the quality of players in ALL teams makes that too real a possibility.

the one statment i do disagree with in mozarts comments is that the draw with the poms and the pumas dosent mean much so forget about that. WTF??? o_O
that is the very attitude which would have the Boks from yesteryear turning in their graves. a draw to as england team who was rebuilding and missing players of their own and on home soil is huge, just as the worst ever result against the pumas in Boks history was.
to downplay the significance of those two results is understandable, cos ur Bok fans and dont want to dwell too much on them, but IMO they represent meyers inabilty to adapt to the pressure cooker demands of the internationl arena.

in the 3rd england test, it was so frustrating watching the Boks apply the same crash and bash tactic over and over and over again, all the while england had smartened up from the first two tests and were chooping the legs of the Boks from under them.

very weak defence (especially from frail bekker) from the Boks and zero attacking ability saw them escape with draw in mendoza and if it wasnt for some wayward kicking, the pumas would have won a game they should have.

the main thing meyer needs to improve on big time is...

- to not depend on the tried and true failed bulls/Boks experiment and actually select some players on merit, lambie/krichner and no morne what so ever except off the bench and only when theres no other alternative

- much better coachingn tactics, a very strong dependance on kicking. nothing wrong with kicking, but the Boks take far to little chances to attack with ball in hand, the only time they do is whne theres a healthy lead or they play an injury ravaged team like the wallabies in loftus.

once a few players return to add stability and experinece to the Boks, im sure their fortuned will turn around, but im still worried about what meyer might do next, as his descions under fire have been well below par of what is requried from a man in his role.

Carpetmuncher

I agree with your post 100%.  I in fact concentrated on the selection issue - as this is what really caused Mozart to foocus entirely on the Soweto test - without any real regard to the other tests played.

I also believe that Meyer is a real rugby technician - he knows what he wants to happen and mosy likely want to change the game plan to what was the case in the Australia test - but he does not pick players that can be successful in that capacity - he build all his hopes on failed players - who cannot introduce anything remotely related to dynamic rugby.

That results in continueing with failed players and making of statements that we do not have good backline players in the first instance.   It really shows that the technician factor relates only to forward play and is seriously defective insofar as backline play is concerned.  

In any event Meyer's selection of coaching staff is as bad as his player selections.

Of course Hasbeen you are right....if Morne had his kicking boots this year the draws would have disappeared and we might even have won down under. A totally new team, new coaches and the unexpected collapse of a kicking machine.......not good.

I have read all the responses above.....even Mike's new version of War and Peace. There are valid points. It wasn't only the youngsters. It's never good to lose or draw with inferior opposition. We do have an over reliance on defence and kicking.

But Meyer can't correct all the ills in South African rugby by himself. Playing style, for example, is not just a national thing, the Bulls, Stormers and Sharks all eschew a more attacking game. To me the Sharks are closest to an approach that could work for the Boks....they are pretty balanced.  But it's not NZ or the old Wallabies....kicking plays a big role.

Then there are the players.....the call goes up for new blood. But lets be brutally honest, in a year where youngsters have been given more chances than any since 2004, only Etzebeth has come through. Mvovo, Taute, Jantjies, Goosen, Greyling, Kruger, Daniels and Coetzee have all failed. Yes, even Coetzee, who has been quietly dropped to the bench.....and he isn't suited there.....not an impact player.

It's not Meyer's fault none of these youngsters have seized their chances, but perhaps they may.  I give Goosen a pass even though he was terminally nervous against the ABs. And fairness dictates Jantjies should get a few starts, but I hold little hope.

We can dump on Meyer and I have been guilty of this. But face it, he has had a difficult hand, made more difficult by the failure of new players to seize their chances and poor form of some senior players. My main thesis remains.....the Boks this year were well prepared and competitive, not the disaster some would claim.

Crap, the issue with Meyer is his poor team/squad selections and an out of touch game plan. He had more than enough players to work with. The core is in place and the talent abounds - evidenced by the fact that 3 of our S15 sides ended up in the top 5 of the log.

Yes the loss of experienced players like J. Fourie, du Preez, Smit, Bakkies, Matfield, Schalk and Juan played a small part but was hardly defining. Some of the experienced players like Jean and Morne have been a liability not an asset and the youngsters coming through are proving better.

Meyer has not excuse, the major issues are selections and game plans and of course his blind faith is washed up hasbeens like Morne, Jean, CJ, Steenkamp and co

Had Meyer selected properly and employed a modern game plan, his record might not have looked so damn ordinary to date

Mozart

Thanks for the compliment.  Just one qyestion - have you read War and Peace?   If you have you are a very good reader.   It was only after I read it the second time that I realized it was the best novel ever written by anybody.   So if you are indeed referring to my comments as a version of Wat and Peace I do believe that it is a compliment of the highest order.

I do believe your latest comments are very near to the mark.   Problem is that Meyer made some very serious selection errors - it applies to established players as well as the new ones.   The most serious ones were Taute (at center - I would have had no problem with him at full back), Jantjies, Engelbrecht, Greyling, Werner Kruger and Potgieter  amongst the younger generation.   I do not rate Daniels and Coetzee in that category - at least they were top performers in Super 15 - and Coetzee will be around for mnany years to come.    Of the older players - in respect of the present squad - he really flopped with Morne Steyn, Van der Linde, Steenkamp and De Jongh.  De Jongh showed nothing in Super 15 and the only claim to fame was a surprise try scored by him in the CC Final.  CJ van der Linde was kicked off the team by the Stromers and also did near to ziich for the Lions - while Steenkamp is now a flappy and flopping bench player for Toulouse.  

His other problem is his assisatnt coaches - really a bad collection of nincumpoops.    

Mike if you enjoyed War and Peace, and haven't read The Brothers Karamazov.....I would do so. I think, perhaps, it is even a greater insight into the human soul. In any case, a civilized man should read one Russian classic a year.

Back to rugby. Why don't you give us your team and bench as things currently stand, from all available players, including those not selected for the tour.

Mozart

It is always easy to criticize - but less so to come up with answers like you require.   I would say that any issue would be hotly debated, but I would look at overall performances in Super 15 next year before coming up with a real team for the 2013 tests.   The players to potentially should be considered based on performance and playing ability are the following:-

 15   Ludick, Taute and Kirchner

 14   Pietersen, Rhule and Van den Heever

 13   Jordaan, De Jongh, Du Plessis, Howard, Small-Smith  -  Really hard one this

 12,  Francois Steyn,  De Villiers, Whitehead, De Allende 

 11   Habana. Mvovo, Basson, Van den Heever

 10   Goosen, Lambie, Morne Steyn

   9   Hougaard, Reinach, Groom, Pretorius

   8   Vermeulen, Kankowski, Botha

   7   Alberts, Elstadt, Burger;

   6    Coetzee, Fourie  

   5   Bekker, Du Toit, Marais

   4   Etzebeth, Van der Merwe,

   3   Du Plessis, Malherbe, Oosthuizen

   2   Du Plessis, Strauss

   1   Beast,  Kitshoff, Nel, Van der Merwe

The overseas players to be carefully studied are Louw and Pienaar.

There is a major problem in some positions that can only be resolved by new players.  The one particular weak spot is 13.   I think in all fairness De Jongh needs to be included inthe study - but do not think he would make the grade.   Meyer played De Villiers at 13 this year - but he was not a success in that position.  Taute really does not want to play at 13 and Engelbrecht was very poor.   I personally think the up-and-coming centers would be Jordaan, Howard and Small-Smith, with Du Plessis as an outside chance.

No 12 is another problem area.   In all fairness De Villiers is likely to play his final Super 15 next year,   Despite the hype Francois Steyn needs to show a hell of a lot more than he did in tests this year.   Whitehead is a good player - but not a house on fire.  I was impressed with the little I saw of De Allende and he may be the final asnwer to out vows at 12.   His coach said De Allende would decide himself whether he wants to be a Springbok - in other words he has such good natural abilities that his selection would be automatic - very high praise indeed.

The scrummy issue is really also problematic.   Hougaard has been bad in the tests and in the CC semi-final.  He really had a serious reverse in form this year.   Reinach was vey impressive in the CC games - but his inexperience showed in the  CC final.   I think the best up-and-coming scrummie is Reinach and I would watch him closely.   In the meantime I think Pienaar would for the next year at least would be the top candidate.

As I said the three critical positions are 9, 12 and 13 - with 5 also a toss-up in the absence of Bekker.        

 Meyer's selection policy- and the required personnel to implement the best possibale game plan have been doom and gloom. However it does seem that he is learning and may not be as stubborn and pig headed.

Although this could be that the Bulls were so bad that he has been forced to choose other players.

The logical thing was to start the season with mostly stormers and sharks with a few of the best players from other regions. 

The likes of Werner Kruger and the other idiot whos name escapes me gave away more penalties in the SuperXV than any other props so how they could selected escapes me. 

The backrow combination especially in Argentina was woeful. Potgieter was another token bulls selection.

Meyer keeps saying that other teams kick more than the boks- not sure we are watching the same game.

The other teams do kick, but typically when in their own 22 as defence or smart field position kicks like that played by Carter to take the game beyond reach in Soweto.

The aimless kicking drivel that is dished up each week by Morne Steyn for much of the season can hardely be compared. 

The turning point seemed to be with Goosen coming of the bench and Francoius Louw playing at 6.

Now Lambie playing at 10.

I do also think that playing Dejong brings some sanity. A solid and proven player in his position- if not spectacular.

Playing players in their specialist position like Taute at Fullback, will not allow the pathetic defence against the All Blacks. The All Black backs are good, but not that good. Our teams like the Stormers and Sharks play against their SuperXV team week on week and we did not experience the type of defensive isues in the backline as against the All blacks. Everytime the All Blacks go into our 22 they scored. 

So it seems that Meyers selection is improving, although not sure why so many backup players in the squad are players who will probably not make the 2015 World cup.

If a player is a 3rd or 4th choice, surely it makes sense to blood the best performing youngster, not some player in their 30s playing in another country. It does see that Meyer has to make every mistake in the book to learn. Hopefully he has learnt allot by now........

Shark, I think he is simply using players who have experience as an insurance policy. A few years back we brought in BJ Botha in a similar role.....he sorted our scrum, which had been decimated by the Italians, threatening our whole tour. Then he was replaced by Jannie. It's practical. To ask one of these kids, who face it, struggled against the Sharks scrum, to come on with 20 minutes left in an NH test....strange conditions and techniqiues....doesn't help their cause.

Sharkbok

I often differ with Mozart - but tend to agree with him about the insurance players.   Meyer might think they are good insurers - but I am not so sure of that one.

I really am worried about De Jongh.   He is solid in defence - but in virtually all other aspects of center play a real problem.  In the CC semi he made some serious mistakes by kncking balls on (two cases) whilw WP was on the attack - thus losing critical possession.   He more than any other backline player, gets penalized after tackles for holding onto the ball or for losing the ball resulting from mauls following such a tackle.   Even in the CC final - where he scored a good try- he gave away two converted penalties - one pure silliness and the other in a tackle situation.

The other problem I have with him - as was proved during the 2012 Super series - that he is really harmless and his ability in that component of the gme is indeed quetionable,   I do not think Meyer had another option - but to select him for the upcoming tests - but other  than sound defence -  I don't expect anything else as a positive from him.

I am afraid volume is drowning out good common sense which to some here is uncommon!

Meyer is playing the old fashioned bulle game. Hahahahhahahahahahaha. The Boks are kickingthe leather off the ball. Hhahahahahahaha

Lets face a few facts. The Boks hav eoften kicked less tha ttheir oponents.. The boks cant score tries. Well what happened at newlansds agaisn tthe Argies or Dunedin and against oz at Loftus!!!! Please oaks get real. Meyer has a flexible approach and  we have seen some enterprising backline play.

Then we have the littany of his selection errors. fact though was that greyling in 2011 had a good match agains tthe abs in nz. he also had a solid Super15 . How in the world was Meyer to know he would go haywire like he did.

jaques Potgieter had a very goo dsuper 15 . Agains tthe Argies he was the highest rated Bok loose forward. hardly the disaster some hatters are making out.

Kirchner has been pretty good and some commentators have siad he came out of the comp with reputation in tact. He was hardly a dusaster!!!  But sling enough mud nd some sticks.

De jongh - my oh my. Mike has a total bee in his bonnet driving him crazy. If De Jongh was half as bad as mike makes out i would be very worried!!

Juandre Kruger. Given the composure of the loose trio, very big strong guys, juandre is acceptable as he , unlike matfield actually contributes outside the lineout as a lock and is really mobile. So not a disaterous choice. If we had small loosies like the major flop daniel and wee brussouw we could not afford Juandre.

Then Meyer knows some of our under 21 players like Kitshoff and Malherbe are not ready and he is not going to throw them to the wolves as Meyer is a builder and looks to the future.

Goosen - well everyone was baying fo rhis inclusion and save for injury he would hav ebeen fine. All his kicks at post that missed just missed and were well struck - no signs of nerves at all.

What nobody has answered is the fact e woul dahve won the rugby championship had morne had his kicking boots on. How many her ewould have betted on u smissing 9 penalties agains tthe abs? come on be honest.

Mike and snapster and muncher please cheer up and enjoy the good win coming up on Saturday. Meyer is a bit deep for you lot and I know you are struggling but I will do my best to assist you! Hahahahahahahahahaha

The only pioint that is correct is Meyers choice of supporting coaches.

BJ sorted out our scrums, the little man that bore in everytime. He was a very average prop and never lasted for good reason

Beeno

Your spirited defence of Meyer's selection is in some ways totally off the mark and in other ways quite funny.  Let me explain something to you:-

Greyling's selection was a gross abuse of knowledge of rugby performances.  Greyling gave away MOST PENALTIES of all players in Super 15 and his scrummaging for the Bulls was poor.   IIf the penalty issue did not open Meyer's eyes to Greyling's problems and potential problem scenrio in the team nothing would.

Kirchner was very average in all his games - he has largely cut out hs nefficiency under a hgh ball this year - but he often was out of posiion - this in fact led to the Dagg try in Duedin.   His defence was in any cese  on the weak side.  There are definitely better full backs around and his selection was basically better full backs around - so his selection was basically not sound.

De Jongh - how many tries has he scored the past year - and how many cases of bugger-uos there has been?   If he is a Springbok - my ass is one as well.   Go and look at his stats and the games he played in and tell me I am wrong. 

Juandre Kruger - a very average lock whose performances was very poor the last year and does very little in the line-outs.   There really ae at least 5 oher locks better than him,

Why did you not include the kegendary Werner Kruger,Engelbrecht, CJ van der Linde and Fatso Steenkamp (to name just a few)  in your list of justifications?  

Swami....after Castrogiovanni destroyed Wian du Preez, another of the young hopefuls you were touting so heavily.....BJ Botha was hastily called up for Ireland. The result was a vastly improved Bok scrum....I qm

Swami....after Castrogiovanni destroyed Wian du Preez, another of the young hopefuls you were touting so heavily.....BJ Botha was hastily called up for Ireland. The result was a vastly improved Bok scrum....I qm

Swami....after Castrogiovanni destroyed Wian du Preez, another of the young hopefuls you were touting so heavily.....BJ Botha was hastily called up for Ireland. The result was a vastly improved Bok scrum....I qm

Sorry about the posting snafu.....I have no idea what happened.

Swami....after Castrogiovanni destroyed Wian du Preez, another of the young hopefuls you were touting so heavily.....BJ Botha was hastily called up for Ireland. The result was a vastly improved Bok scrum....I quote from the match report:

"South Africa seem to be on top at the scrum and Ireland's front row are really struggling, being forced backwards and popping up, conceding a penalty which du Preez takes quick and runs into trouble."

This is almost an exact analogy of our current situation where Meyer prefers Heinke to the inexperienced Kitshoff......but the Swami knows better.

@mike you know what they say birds of a feather flock together

Old beeno's one trick pony views alligns very well with meyer's views it seems. cant say i am surprised really.

i for one am totally against selecting overseas based players as it serves as motivation for local based players to go overseas and why wont they. the only marketing tool that SARU has to keep our local bred players is the chance to play for the boks. local players that play in our local comps are the only ones that to me should be allowed to play for the boks.

and i do qoute enterprizing backline play....dear lord beeno are you serious ????? well if you compare the boks backline play to the "stormers run it from everywhere approach ....cough cough cough...." then i reckon the boks backs looks like they just got teleported out of the jonah lomu playstation 1 rugby game then hey mate !!!!!!...even old chester williams has given some forwards the hand off there. but alas deur old beeno we live in the real world.

the banter aside the fact we have a opensider to play on saterday will at least aid our cause but a win is not assured. if meyer wanted to build depth for RWC 2015 then why not select the likes of kitshoff and co and build him towards the RWC...what merit does it have picked a 28 year old player that has not potential future at the boks rather than just to be a short term solution.

meyer thinks short term that is his biggest downfall

@sasu well said mate....it seems quite a lot of super rugby coaches find it tough at the top. meyer robbie ext. its not easy at the top that being said being hell bent on your own ways and mindset at the end of the day will cost you the job. at international level there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. those that had the biggest successes in the modern game like graham henry, clive woodward and jake white and co and one skill set that set them apart from the rest is the ablity to be progessive and think outside of the box. that is a rare mindset and picking a support staff that brings there own certain skill set to a coaching enviroment/team is to me the best recipe for winning combination. clive had a massive support staff that had there own focus areas. same as jake and he learned what clive did and refined it to suite soutf africans. came pdv all the staff and structures were tossed out the window and that is how the rot started.

i cant help but wonder why the boks dont go the soccer route and employ a manager and the coach can be in the background and do his thing rather than worry about the player selection and playing style. maybe i am just spit ballen here

Moz, funny that given Wian du Preeze was a loosehead and your hero BJ was a tighthead. BJ was a damn average prop who had the tendancy to bore in. CJ was the better choice at the time and vindicated that with many more test caps.

Kitshoff stood firm all S15 as he has done in the CC. Same with Malherbe. The only time the WP scrum struggled was when they lost Liebenberg and Bekker in the engine room. Its called persepctive, something you are incapable of taking into account. Unless of course you will have us believe that Kitshoff struggled in the scrums for the Stormers all S15?

Fact is Kitshoff at 19 is the best loosehead propspect I have seen in years. To think he is in his second year of Super rugby aged 19. And you will have is believe Heinke who v/d Merwe is a better squad selection - what utter bullshit

Muncher please, WP have made big strides re their attacking gameplan so lets stop harkening back to the past on that.

As for the Boks the Loftus test againt Oz and other periods of play show that Meyer is not only about forward dominance. That said foward dominance is a key aspectof Bok play and I think Meyer has a pretty good pack for the Irish test. Its strong and also has a mobile tight five.

Our backline show signs of perking up and its just a pity Frans and Habana are out.  The idea Meyer is only into a forward orientated game with kicking the ball away is daft.

I am expecting a few red faces after Saturday! Hahahahahahahahahahaha - however my qualifications are the ref and the weather. If it rains oaks dont expect brilliant runninmg rugby - one always has to explain these obvious things. If conditions are good I hope to see some enterprising play and some contrite Meyer bashers!!!! Hopefully we will have a fair competent ref. We may find we have to adapt to slightly different interpretations etc but as long as the ref is consistent we have a chance of handling this.

Beeno

At this stage the weather forecast is sunny and cloudy for both tomorrow and Saturday.  However, the weather in Europe is normally quite wet and and often  unpredictable if one has to go with the forecasts given.   It is likely that playing conditions will be fair and reasonable.

Meyer selected the best available backline.   However, that does not necessarily mean that the backline would perform well enough to meet requirements as an attacking unit.   The main problem centers around the bench .  I am seriously worried about De Villiers - a hammy injury often has a longer impact than 14 days,   If he cannot last the game - there is going to be a replacement requirement and that would mean Steyn at 12.   Dead goes the backline and the whole game will become on of donkey kicks.  

Problem with our kiicking game is that it is totally ineffective.  Lambie is way above the rest in that respect - he knows how to kick strategically and normally do not kick balls needlessly and aimlessly - but what will Steyn do.   After all - the latter is the expert in aimless and needless kicking.   I have stated before and I stick with it -  and that is the defensive lapses encountered when Taute was at center and Hougaard at wing  - especially in the Soweto test - but also in the Wallaby test in the case of the try by Harris.   That could be a major problem - especially since the tackling abilities of Kirchner is also i doubt.  Lets get back to the kicking story - it is not whether other teams kick more than us - it is about the effectiveness of the kicks.  The kicking of the Irish will be much more effective and Kirchner - whose positional play is often not sound - could also be  problem.

The problem remains as to the performance of the backline in the first instance.   Despite Lambie the deadlie would go "dead" if Steyn and De Jongh is brought on in the center positions.   The problem remains that Meyer's original squad selection did not cover the center issue well and now he has to play one of his preferred full backs at center.     

The poblem is also with his bench selection insofar as the forwards go.  Especially as to the props - we have Cilliers and Van der Linde on the bench.   Cilliers was weak in those tests he came from the bench thus far and Van der Linde can at best be described as a jke in bad taste.    I really get the shivers at the mere thought of them having to play.

With the team as selected I give them a 55:45 chance of winning - especially with a better backline as expected being selected.   If early changes from the bench is necessary - I think the odds will be 55:45 in favour of the Irish.

On the whole a 50:50 game with the irish having home test advantage.  I would put any money on the Springboks winning and you may easily be the one ending up with the red face. 

If Jean goes off Juan De jongh comes on and he should hold up his end.  Maybe Taute will switch to fullback if Kirchner goes off.

I am hoping to see the Irish munched and some dollips of egg landing where they most belong. Hahahahhaahhahaha

Go Bokke make us proud!!! 

Bye the way Mike there are a numbe of articles saying De Jongh not making the side is a travesty. I Think the best call would have been Taute at 15 and De jongh at 13. Anyhow the die is cast and despite everything wrong I am looking to a Bok win. Your position on De Jongh is too extreme. As is snapters view that Meyer is an idiot. 

I have still to hear anyone refuting my claim that had Morne had his kicking boot on we would have won the Rugby Championship. Even those considerations do not stop the bleats re Meyer! Even the loss at loftus would ahv ebeen much closer. We also missed penalties agains tthe Argie in Argentina. 

I put our winning chance sat 60%. Unforunately I am not well up on NH rugby so it is a bit of a shot in the dark but it is based on the fact we are a very capbale side as this rugby championship has proven (Note the comments the good Doctor made) and if lambie goals his kicks there is absolutley no reason apart from the ref being a BL, that we cant win.

Beeno rightly confident of Bok success. 50/50 game! What are the bookies saying Mike?

Er Swami.....I know Wian was a loosehead. I never said BJ replaced him.....I said BJ was called up after Castro slaughtered Wian and our front row imploded. Smit was returned to hooker, the Beast came back and they introduced BJ to provide strength at tighthead. It worked.

The point is, once again a young inexperienced prop was destroyed in the NH. It happened to Deon Carstens and a host of other young props. the NH is not a nursery.

Kitshoff has great physical gifts, he plays well in the loose, but he still struggles against the big scrummagers. Maybe this will change, he is as you point out, very young. But there is no sense in sending him over there for 5 minutes against Scotland. Until he shows he can handle the likes of Jannie du Plessis.....and occasionaly put a top tighthead under pressure, he is not test ready. He may get there, he may not, the proof is in the pudding.

I thnk Kitshoff will certainly get there but have little qualms about him being left behind right now. Maybe next year but to me these guys should be really seriously challenging in 2014.  Give them some test  experience in 2014 - also helps stop beast and Jannie being played into the ground etc.

Beeno

I checked with the bookies - the odds are as follows:-

Springboks              -             5/10

Ireland                     -            18/10

The bookies think the Springboks are the strong favourites - but they have also been wrong in the past.  

I admit I am harsh insofar as De Jongh is concerned - but if he had better stats - it would have been different.   Really don't like what I have seen.

Disagree 100% Moz, if you are good enough you are old enough. Kitshoff and co are good enough and have proved that all year. If I was the Bok coach, I'd know that the WP scrum struggled in the final against the Bok incumbent props because of the lack of physicality the WP scrum had at 2 and 5. Its called perspective and my selection would have been based on their performance throughout the year.

Nothing will ever convince me that the selection of Steenkamp and CJ was better than selecting Kitshoff and Malherbe to tour as back-ups. Only a conservative, unimaginative, non progressive coach would make that call and his results speak for themselves.

Meyer has learnt nothing, in fact he has regressed. Our worst players this year have been those experienced men like Morne and Jean - instead of learning and moving on he retains these guys and takes it one step further by including even older more washed up players in CJ, Steenkamp, Heinke and Franco v/d Merwe.

If these players had been there as potential starters then fair enough, but heaven for bid they are there as back-ups. This in an environment when we are blessed with many young props and locks coming through. These conservative selections are so short sighted its pathetic. Hell this would have been the perfect tour to blood Kitshoff, Malherbe, Marcel v/d Merwe, Steph du Toit, Bresler, JA Marais, Willemse and the likes.

Until Meyer starts winning 80% of his tests with this conservative approach will I take note - that day will never dawn.

 Jake White, Kitch Kristie and Nick Mallett all had strong starting years, significantly better than Meyer die bull.

Sure those coaches all had outstanding first years.....but in fairness Meyer inherited the first year after a great team broke up.

meyer knew that a normal forward thinking coach would have or at least should have had a long term development plan/structure in place looking at building a support structure and coaching team that could have.

his playing style and public statements and more importantly his coaching selection has really left him man alone on meyer island with no backup or support structures. i still think this tour is crucial for him and his future and there i say if dont see any improvement in the boks playing pattern then he really needs to go. i am harsh i know but we need dynamic forward thinking coaches.