What we should be doing

Mallet and Beeno on the same page. Mallet said we should be building on traditional strengths like excellent set pieces, great defence, sound tactical kicking, physicality etc BUT (and here is where Dr Mozzzz misses the point) also have more attacking flair. Don't neglect the traditional strengths while improving the attack.
If we go back to pre-isolation there was flair. Since isolation we had times where traditional strengths came to the fore. Unfortunately a decade of wee matfiled stuffed things up in the tight five becoming a tight 4.
Like to see the following pack next Saturday which could easily be put on the field:Kitshoff, Marx, Wilco Louw, Eben, Du ToitDu Preez twins and KolisiNow that resembles a Bok pack
In the backs bring in Allende and Combrinck for  Saturday.
All very doable but quotas and poor selections make it impossible.Dreyer lost the test against the Wobblies. Thank goodness Cassiem was injured early on and a decent loosie like Du Preez could come on. Louw did some sterling work in the tight loose despite ou maaaikie's very obvious bias against Louw. I warmed towards Cronje with his outstanding defensive efforts and being at the breakdown so quickly and so often. Faf however should be on the bench. He is a super sub.Make the changes I suggest and keep on trying to play a balanced type of game including the ability to attack and things will go better. The idea you can play the wee abs without the ability to score tries apart from the rolling maul  is a myth and needs to be send to the trash heap.
I back the side I selected to give the wee abs plenty, plenty to think about. 

 
We need a specialist at 6. Kolisi is not an option and neither is Flo.

Bring Cloete or Brussow into the mix.

Jaco Kriel would be perfect ... but sadly he's injured.

Brussow because? And I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I'm interested in your view on this.

 
Isn't it obvious?  We got thumped at the breakdown. Ever wonder why we got thumped?

Could it be because we don't have a specialist there?

Why not Brussow? His age? He has a lot more to offer at 6 than Kolisi and Flow.

You obviously don't like him? Any suggestions?

 I would have liked Cloete to be given a shot he is an abrasive 6 who knows how to get turnover ball. Ou Coetzee though has to think all day about how many quota players he can fit in. I would love to see what he would do with out this millstone around his neck. 
Kolisi is these days showing flair out wide and a better work rate. I am not sure about this yet but I think he fades? However he is a real threat out wide and puts in some solid tackles. If one gets in the right tight five - Kitshoff, Marx, Louw, Eben and Du Toit and then plays Du Preez at  then Kolisi at 7 and  Kriel at 6 might work. If up against a very tough pack bring on another  Du Preez at 7.  Also if you want to really speed up have Akkers at Hooker. Man we have such huge potential but quotas and bad selections are fouling things up. Truly it takes monumentally racist, buffoons to get it so wrong. 

Nope. You couldn't be more wrong about me not liking him. I'm just not too sure how up to date our lot are with Jap rugby where he is still playing at the moment. As far as I know the PTB over here keep up to date with the players over there which is why, I suppose Northampton Saints have already signed him for next year. The SA guys? I'm not so sure. They can hardly sort out among the guys playing in SA. How the hell can we expect them to know what is going on elsewhere. His age? Of course that is not a factor. He will only be 34 by RWC2019, which IMO, is not too old. In fact, at the risk of causing some people heart palpitations, I would reckon that it is probably ideal to have a one or two, or more, experienced hard as nails players among the forwards.

 Go for Cloete before Brussouw. Seems he is a bigger version .

There aren't many who has more upper body strength than Brussow. Big does not always mean strong as well.

Cloete is smaller than Brussouw I believe.

 Cloete is very strong windpomp and I was surprised when he was overlooked even given quo tas. But he may have been injured when Coetzee announced his squad?

 The whole lot is wrong - Coetzee will call up Mohoje as a loosie - uselewss he is but he has the right pigmentation.
Beeno
Louw was brought in to strengthen ball protection and recovery and he was nowhere to be seen doing that - the only time he tried he was penalized.
Louw is way past his best - he is not the loosie he was three years ago and he is pretty slow and useless under SH conditions.   We need a strengthening of the Tight 5 and does not need a slow loosie to bolster up the Tight 5.
Get rid of the Tightheads and bring in really qualifying players.  I would say rather bring in Wilco Louw and back him up with Marais of the Cheetahs or even Thomas du Toit.  The latter can play tighthead and he is a hugely better option than useless Nyakane  - who cannot scrum to save his life.
I think that Vorster and Van Rensburg is a vastly better center combination than Kriel and Serfontein.   I think that De Allende yesterday showed as well that he does not specialize in ball possession losses by making poor and directless passes.
As to the loosie - the answer is obviously Coetzee - whio has been a hard worker as a loosie - not a low work rate player.   However, I am not sure whether Coetzee is not injured - he has not played for Ulster recently.  

 Brussouw is probably celetaped together at this stage, there is no way his body would hold up to test rugby. Cloete should get a chance. We do not produce many specialist opensiders.

 Allende is a good player and itching to have a go. Louw was not nearly as bad a you make out. I see Cassiem thankfully is out for next week. I guess Coetzee will go for Kolisi, Du Preez and Louw.
Still think my team is better than anything Coetzee will pick.

Louw was as effective as any of the loosies out there, Tokkie is just on his deluded script. Allende never did anything wrong but he only had time to do about two things....give him time and the Tractor will show his true colours.

 Beeno
The question really is whether Louw was effective ion breakdown ball protection and recovery - the reason given by Coetzee for his selection.  
The real answer is he was not - he is too pace-deficient to get to breakdown points.   The only time he actually tried to make a ball turnover he was penalized.   That being the case the Coetzee argument about his selection was BS.   
Fact is Louw with age has become the Alberts equivalent as a loosie - the most useless Loosie ever playing for SA.    The man is 32 years old already and as CC pointed out no investment as to the 2019 WC..
In a article quoted on site it was clearly stated that Louw is NOT the Loosie he was three years ago - yet that very clear statement is ignored.




  '

 
Our back row is an embarrassment ... and it was made worse with inclusion of the elderly Louw.

Three blindside flanks with another on the bench is what our backrow consists of.

Brussow is a specialist 6. He may be a little long in the tooth and not really an investment for the 2019 WC ... but I can assure you that he would have contested the breakdown a lot better than both Kolisi and Louw put together.

Kolisi and Cassiem are very poor loosies and bringing a likeness of their incompetence to Louw says it all.

Louw is not test match material.

"Brussow is probably celetaped (sic) together at this stage......", based on what exactly?

 Forget about Brussouw, he is history. H ad one good series against the lions and that was it.
Ou Maaaikie and wee cc are letting their bias against Louw lead to an underestimation of Louw.

 Beeno
e are not alone in that and you may sucker up to win support but you are onto a lost cause.   When the newspapers say he is not the player he was three years ago - it is clear that you will have to do more than just stating BS in this case.   
Louw is definitely not a player for the future and instead of building up a squad Coetzee is going backwards in this case.   

Francois Louw is a has-been who was never that good in the first place. What he's doing in this current team is beyond me. He's not among the top 5 flankers on the openside or the blindside.

 Flo isn't that bad, but he is only effective in the right combination....which is totally in shambles ATM. With the balance of the whole team out of sync, it would be best to stick to classic specialist players. I would like to see Cloete get a go at 6. Incredible athlete with more heart than most. He is a player that has the ability to lift the players around him. Coetzee is a fool not to play him.

Getting back to the original article. There is no such thing as going back to our strengths or a kicking game or a running game. To compete with the likes of NZ, you need to do what they do, play complete rugby. They can defend, they can kick, they can control the set piece and they can attack. These are things that any team must be able to do in order to challenge the AB's. We can go back to our core narrow view of the white era, and try to focus and specialise on dominating the scrums and the line-outs and the ruck area, but the truth is, we will be annihilated by any of the top five teams in the world if we do that. 
To be the best, you need to be excellent in every area of rugby. If we go back to our traditional strengths, and put things like the offload and technical back line play on the back burner, we will never catch up. 
In other words, NZ can compete in each and every facet of rugby with the best of the rest of the world. That is what we need to do. We can use our traditional strengths to try to gain an advantage, but we need to be as good as the best, in every other facet of play. 

Agreed, and there's no great mystery about what the All Blacks do better than everyone else, it's just the basics.

No point worrying about what your game plan is going to be if you can't even get the basics right like passing the ball down the backline. If you can't even get that right then you're going to get thumped by a quality team like the All Blacks no matter what your game plan is.

"Sound game plan, physicality, excellent defence" . . . blah blah blah . . . it's a lot simpler than that. Just get the basics right . . . like passing the ball into the other guy's hands, not over his head, behind him or at his feet.

 bluebook
I think we are in agreement on the issue of putting anything on the back burner - we will get nowhere if we do that.    I was amused by the comment of one commentator on the issue of Mitchell and the Bulls yesterday.   He said that Mitchell is trying to pull the Bulls out of playing 19th century rugby in the 21st century or something to that effect.   
Looking at the Bulls game yesterday I am certain that Mitchell is making gains in that respect.   The Bulls never really prosper against the WP on CC level - but even though they lost by 1 point - they were really competitive yesteerday.
So what do we really need to be competitive in world rugby and my summing up is as follows:-
Props
I have no real problems with Beast and Kitshoff - even though I think in some matches Kitshof should start with beast coming from the bench.
However, the problem is on the tight-head side.  Neither Dreyer and Nyakane are good enough to ensure at least some stability in Tight 5 play - especially scrumming.   With Malherbe out - I would go with Louw and perhaps the Tank and Marais of the Cheetahs to back him up.    Du Toit has played at Tighthead before - though he has been used as loosehead recently.
Hookers 
Marx is the obvious selection - his back-up should come from Marutlulle, Akker or Franco Marais
Locks
I do not think Mostert is good enough in Tight 5 play and would rather see Etzebeth and Du Toit as starting locks and let me surprise you - I would pick Schickerling as back-up.  
Loosies
What can one say - it is an unholy mess.    I would put the following down as candidates:-
No 8   -   Whiteley and Marcell CoetzeeBlindsider - Du Preez, KolisiOpensider - Cloete - but there is a host of youngsters - both opensiders and blindsiders coming through and we will have to wait and see what happens in Super Rugby next year.
 Scrummies
There are just three notable scrummies to consider - Cronje, Schreuder and pehaps that youngster Ivan van Zyl from the Bulls.   I am not happy with Paige at all.
Flyhalfs
Here we have a problem - I think against weak teams Jantjies is good enough - under pressure he is a liability.   So where to from there.   Pollard is not playing enough rugby to consider him at this stage and the two players with an excellent future are Willemse and Bosch.   I have great hopws for these two in future,  
Centers
There is a major problem here - both the present centers are misfits.   I would stick with Lions 2 - Van Rensburg and Vorster with back-up by De Allende, EW Viljoen and Am
Wings/Full back
I would stick with Skosan for the moment - but have no faith in either Leyds or Rhule.  I think our wings and full-back  should come out of Skosan, Combrinck, Coetzee, Koch and Willie le Roux
  

 

Touching on what Rooiter has said, we are not doing the simple things right. Our skills are lacking and it is part of major rugby mentality issue in South Africa. Our teams seem to lack the ability to execute their moves with the same level of accuracy as the top teams. A slightly lower execution accuracy percentage than your opponent in rugby will often mean a huge difference on the score board. It comes down to coaching, and our coaching is simply inadequate, and that is on all levels. Up until recently, Mozter put it down to South Africa simply not having the caliber of players to challenge the best, and I was happy to go with that sentiment, but after seeing how quickly the Lions managed to turn things around with those very same low caliber players, has made me reevaluate my view on the matter. Their turn around is due mostly to a different coaching philosophy.   
We have the players, we don't have the coaches or the correct rugby mindset. 

The Lions lost a final against the Saders at home, at altitude.....against a team that had just travelled for a day. If that's what we are hanging our hat on it seems very low bar. ... So there is only one way to play rugby, except nobody told that to England, Ireland or the British Lions.

 Pollution - member is m oronic

Smut....member is a 74 year old Pervert who likes young men

2 SuperRugby finals in a row is the best South African performance in SuperRugby for about 8 years.  It is certainly the benchmark in South Africa- where other SA teams need to compare themselves with.
The Bulls tried a 10 man game in 2017, and it failed dismally.Firstly because they do not have forwards that could totally dominate like the 2009 era of Bulls, and secondly, because the backline could not score enough tries to be competitive.
Nowadays the ruck is more important than 1st phase lineouts and scrums put together. Forwards need to be mobile to get to rucks quickly to retain possession or slow down the opposition ball.
10 man rugby alone will never win competitions, or even get teams very far. 
The current Springbok pack would also get beat at just 10 man rugby- so it is not an option.

Totally disagree. the reason Australia isn't challenging NZ is because they leak scrum penalties. The scrum is more important than ever and creates one of the few opportunities where there is space on the park. The lineout is probably the single most likely source of tries via the maul. .. Nobody is saying we should go back to 10 man rugby, which we rarely played in any case. While NZ dominates in phase play....we could, with the right players, dominate set pieces, which gives us an offset. ... The Lions are an admirable team ....they rise above their individual players. But they have advanced to the finals under a bent system. If the old format that the Bools won under was in play they would have struggled to make the semis. One thing the Lions have shown us is our forwards can handle the ball if properly coached. No reason not to incorporate that in the mix. Jake got the Brumbies handling brilliantly.....they still couldn't win Super rugby. We need our traditional strengths amplified....not abandoned.

 The pieces of advice are sycophant material. This guy sells what people wish to hear. Rightly so since it is part of his job. The guy is in the business to write words that sell.


The article does it nearly at a minimum. Two fingers close to read that winning at rugby is achieved when you score more tries and penalties than your opponent.

It means nothing.

One example, great defense. It is empty. It does not tell how to defend properly against the ABs.

One great strength in the ABs is the way and speed they collaborate on the field, they can quickly overload zones, they provide support fast etc

Great defense does not tell how to manage to defend against a team whose members are on the same wave length as the ABs are.