What went wrong against Ireland- General Review of comments

 not so clevermike...big problems with the tight five...the five behind them and then the five behind them as well...and lets not forget the five on the bench

The problem is not so widespread, and replacing most of the team 9 months before a world cup will not achieve anything. 
Hougaard was a liability, and the starting loosie trio was not balanced enough for ruck play in the N. hemisphere. 
The Boks tight five should be applauded on their performance.This was probably the best set piece performance by any team ranked in the top 10 during 2014. No line-outs lost, lots of opposition line-outs won. 
The Bok scrum totally destroyed the Irish scrum.  It is a long time since I have seen the Boks win a tighthead of the quality they did on Saturday, Kick offs were solid as has generally been the case since the return of Matfield.  However the forward pick and carries runs to dominate the advantage line were not effective. This was however mostly due to the poor ruck performance that did not provide quick ball to run onto. Only the likes of Vermuelen and both Strausses could get over the advantage line, and this was without front foot ball. (They were carrying oppostion players on their back to cross the advantage line). 
When Bok players were tackled the Boks were very slow to offer protection at the ruck area. It seems many were just waiting for ball to run onto and a case of not enough players to the rucks. (Improvements happened when Burger and A Strauss came on). 
Was it not for the stupid yellow card by Strauss I think the boks would have improved enough at the breakdown to have still won the game. 
Even with the quality first phase possession, from 2nd phase onwards it was a disaster.
This is where the 2 real problems start: 
1. Hougaard has proven that he is an effective scrummie with quick clean ball. However as in 2012 when he was the number one choice for the Boks, in the 3 test series against England- He is not effective when the ball is not clean.I doubt Hougaard will ever start again for the Boks in the Northern Hemishphere. 
2. The loosies were outplayed on the ground. It is clear that Louw is missed in Northern Hemisphere conditions where the referees interpret the breakdown differently, and the ball is often slower out of the ruck due to the soft underfoot conditions. A Southern Hemisphere ref would have penalised the Irish for being offside more often, but this is well known by now so no excuse. The Boks need to have 3 loosies that contribute on the ground, or at least 2 specialists. A specialist fetcher is also required on the bench for matches like this when the breakdown is a disaster. 
Having Louw, Coetzee and Vermuelen is a good combination for the Northern Hemisphere conditions. Mohoje has no effect at the breakdown and although he is a decent player, he is messing up the back row combination. 
The sloppy play brought out the worst in Hougaard. Hougaard does not know when he must dig the ball out of a ruck himself just to get the ball away as quick possible. Sometimes to just waits and this gives the opposition plenty of time to re-organise themselves. Also for stray hands to grab his jersey or push the ruck backwards to disrupt Hougaard. The Irish harassed Hougaard at the breakdown and it was clearly part of their game plan. Hougaard must never start again for the Boks in the Northern Hemisphere. He is worse than useless behind slow ball. 
Ok he should not have been given such poor ball by the Loosies on 2nd phase onwards, but no one is worse than him with messy ball. When it is unclean ball the key area is to get the ball as quick as possibale and clear it away with one step. Hougaard just does not have the passing skill to do this. His passing to the left when under pressure is particularly bad. He seems to push the ball away with 2 hands like a girl throws.
Hougaard Scrummie SummaryA specialist scrumhalf like Vermaak, FDP, Pienaar would have had a much better performance yesterday. This alone may have been enough to win the match. Hougaard is a running scrummie, he does not understand tactical play and his passing under pressure is not test level.
Loosie SummaryThe Boks often put in poor performances against Northern Hemisphere times when the loosies get out played. The combination yesterday was rubbish. We need to have starting combination that is more effective at the breakdown. We also need a bench with a specialist fetcher on the bench. so in games like this we can substitute to replace a ball carrier with a specialist fetcher. It does not matter if we have strong ball carriers, as without clean 2nd phase and 3rd phase possession- we are not going to dominate the collisions and advantage line to get front foot ball and space. 
--
1. If Hougaard has not played yesterday we could have won. Pienaar or FDP would have dealt with the mess at the breakdown much better. Joost or any of the top scrummies shout at their forwards to clean the ball for them and organise the rucks. They also have a better pass to clear the ball faster without multiple steps
2. Instead of Mohoje, if we had a a loosie that was good at the breakdown we could have won.
Just fixing these 2 issues would have seen the Boks win convincingly. I am not going to blame the outside backs because they go no ball. 
The midfield had 2 inside centres that cant create anything for each other. However allthough the midfield was not good, I think if we could have got the ball going through multiple phases with quick ball, we could have put more pressure on the Irish midfield. 

 29-15

Ireland was better prepared. They identified our strengths before the game and neutralized them. They put two guys on Pollard, one to police his channel and one (Heaslip for example) to cover the inside break that was so destructive against the All Blacks. They never let Vermeulen out of their sight and countered the rolling maul effectively for most of the game. They competed aggressively at the rucks and their motivation and commitment levels were off the park.

The Boks on the other hand got stuck in first gear. Poor service from scrumhalf, poor protection against the aggressive Irish counter rucking, no apparent plan other than bashing it up, isolated runners with no support getting the ball turned over, inability to think outside the box to break the Irish defensive line.

Ireland knew exactly how to beat us.

We thought we could just go out there, run over them with our cliched little bash it up game and go home victorious.

 Pakie that about sums it up perfectly.

 There were other issues than those mentioned by Sharkbok and tthe issues relates to ome aspects that he did not mention.   The issues are not directly obvious - but to say we could have won is rubbish really - we could not have won - bcause the loosie combination was not right.
Lets look at things objectively.
The Wings
The three wings used were Habana, Hendricks and Pietersen.   Habana did nothing and there were two incidents involving the other two that made a telling difference:-
*    IN one promising attacking move Hendricks near the Irish tryline overran the pass made to him and the ball went over the touchline.
*    The cross kick by S exton - Pietersen never was interested in trying to collect the kick - he seemed lost completely and a try was scored by the Irish. 
Now lets look at the issue from a defense perspective.   Hndricks has been a liability on defnese in most tests - he is no good under high balls and one can only woinder why the Cheetahs generally uses him as an impact playr - not their starting wing.   Are those deficiencie the reason for his bench selection by them.   Personally I think they are.
Pietersen  was never a fast wing - he was a strong ball carrier - but his speed was never really an issue.   In essense he always defended well and had two distinct characterstic in defense.   He used the touchline well in tackles forcing the attacking player over the touchline - and he made early and very effective and strong ackles before opposing players can gain speed.   Once they got runnng at speed - Pietersen's defense was iffy to poor - mostly due to his personal lack of pace.   The latter has always been a problem when playing him at 13 as well.    In that position he does not  have the touchline as an assistance in defense and due to his lack of pace - he also was ineffective at 13.   That was the reason why the Sharks in 2012 after trying him out at 13 moved him back to the wing.   At 13 or 14 pace is an issue and if that is missing - it remains a serious problem.   Staring off as slowish players - their stints in Japan only worsened the issue.   
Habana cn be exploisive at times - but he has a tendency not to look for work and that was very evdent  against the Irish.   When he did get the ball - he lost possession twice and his defense was non-eistent - he missed the only tackle he attameoted.   
I would saythat he is to be watched and assessed over a period - but it should also be borne in mind that he is not in his prime anymore - and that remaisn a problem.    I would say we need to watch Habana with care and try and find another good wing - good enough in both attacking and defending play.      
The Centers
The problem here is evident and has been summarised well by various contributors.   Both are effective inside centers - but neither are 13's.  Both specializes in crashballing and since that is th case there is a deficiency in creating space for the players outside of them.   
De Villiers last year was very good and showed a lot of characyter - despite his advancing years.   This year he was not a shadow of the player he was last year in both attacking play and defense.   In the latter regard he developed a tendency to rush out of the defending line and to create gaps exploited by opponents.   If the decline in his performances since 2013 is borne in mind - and tha continues next year - we would have a serious liability if he is to conitnue in that position.   
At 13 we have a serious problem.   The players we have tried in that position since 2012 have all failed because of various reasons:-
*    Taute enver was really a center - he was a full back tried out at center and the result was he failed in both attacking and defensive play.
*    De Jongh was used in one RC test (wherehe was on the ebcnh)  two EOYT tests and failed in all three.   He was nowhere to be seen in both EOYT tests he played in in Super 15 in 2013 his defnse became a joke in bad taste.   Bigger and stronger centers just ran over him.   The same problem was encountered in Super 15 this year - where his defess was even worse than it was in 2013.   A good finisher when put int space - but absolutely uselees  otherwise.
*    JJ Engelbrecht started off looking good in the Argentine test in Cape Town in 2013.  However, since thn he was less effective in both tests and Supr 15 and that is due to his tendency to run straight at defenders and not try and exploit opponents in attacking play.   He is not a space creator for the wings to exploit and there has been rather serious defensive lapses as well.    I think Meyer is not atisfied with him at 13 and that is with some reason as well.   A wing that has not really adjusted to the role of a 13 and whose adjustment was amplified by the way the Bulls use centers.   If for instance he went to play at center for the Cheetahs - he may have grown pout of his deficiencies and developed into a good all-round 13 - but it did not happen.
*    Jacque Fourie at 13 has a serious pace prooblem - worsened by his stint in Japan.   When playing in the EOYT last year - he was run around twice by D avies in the Welsh test - which was essentially the result of lack of pace - but otherwise heis defense was very good.   On attack he showed zero positives.   The oen good thing he did was from an off-side position that - if checked by the referee - could easily have resulted in a 10 point swuing in favour of the Welsh.   For the rest he was useless in attacking play.
None of th above is in fact a viable option at 13 - neither is either serontein or De Villiers.   Meyer is probably right to look for De Allende as an option - but the latter needs to gain expperience in that position.    After playing for the first time in that position since his school years in the Argenine test in Pretoria - he missed two tackles - but showed serious signs of being effective in attacking play.   His defense in the away test was much beeter - but he also showed signs of being good in attacking play. Meyer consequently asked the Stormers to play him at 13 in Super 15 next year,  However, in view of the poor attackingform of Serfontein - as displayed in tests he played in that position this year - I will not be at all surprised to see De Allende being utilized at 13 in the remainder of the tests this year.
Scrummie
After utilized by Meyer at scrummie in his iniitial tests in 2012 by Meyer - Hpougaard was a serious failure at scrummie that year.  here was a solid reason for bringing in first Ruan Pienaar and then Fourie du Preez as scrummies.   
Becuase of Hougaard's deficiencies in the recent tests - the public seems to eb howling for the return of the injured Pienaar and Du Preez - but will they really be the answer?
Both are way over their prime performance ages and over the past two years both has been used in tests with asome improvement in comparison to Hougaard.   Was it really a success story?
*    Pienaar was frequently out of position at rucks and his service became rather slow and colourless.  His kicking game was good in most tests - but he is definitely not a knight in shining armour.   At best a rather indifferent option and on the negative side will have to show that he still belong for his club next year.
*    Du Preez shwed very little of his previous signs of brilliance in the tests he played in.  In the last two RC tests last year - he was an "also played" -  his service was adequate and he did show some good signs in reading of the game.  However, his personal attacking play vanished from the screen and his defense around the finges was indifferent. 
*    Cobus Reinach came from the bench in three tests this year.   He showed excellent signs in his first test - and was adequate in the other two.   However at this stage eh has had considerably less than 40 minutes game time in all three tests and it is defenitely not possible to make a realistic assessment of his abilities in that short a test playing career.    Du Preez is probaby the answer at 9 next year --but that is if he could remain injury free.   On the negative side he would have minimal game time in 2015 and is a gamble - especially sicec his advancing age does impact on his performances.   Not the best in the wrld anymore - but could be regarded as adequate.
The Loosies
The key issue here is who to play in the number 7 position.  There has been several players utilized and te answer in essense cae back to th following:-
*    Willm Alberts  is a player with serious deficiencies - since he canno protect balls in tackle situations and is incapable of doing anything in ball recovery.   The latter is proibably due to his speed deficiency.   In reality his attacking play is non-existent - his famous ball carries virtually in name only.   His defense showed serious deficiencies - also because of lack of pace.    More of a lock than a loosie - he is not the answer.   
*    Schalk Burger became an impact player and he showed serious signs of effectiveness in some tests - he was nowhere near effectivon Saturday.   Another player with serious question marks.
*    Tebohe Mohoje was the normal bench player for the Cheetahs and got ome game time when Labuschagne was injured.   He showed some good playin one game and was then i the bsence of Arno Botha and Labuschagne because of injuries - by Meyer inthe ntional squad.   He is absent in the case of ball protection and recovery.   He was largey unoticeable in the tests he played in - definitely not international standard.
I think u;ltimately nextyyeartheposition would boil down to selection of eitherof the following at 7:-
Arno Botha, Lappies Labuschagne, Warren Whiteley Marcel Cetzee.   
The latter will reduce our line-out options.   
Tight 5
This is a problem that will get worse oer the next year.   Hs been adequately discusssd on this site.   The geriatrics here ae not going to make it to next years WC and the sooner they are changed the better it would be. Matfield is adequate in line out play and in nothing else. Jannie is mostly a liability and Bakkies has done squat since his return to international rugby last year.   
  

Actually the real reason for the try you blame on JP was Reinach's missed tackle on Seexton which allowed our attack to be breached. 

Mozart 
Reinach's stats is not eflected on the ESPN site - but you have been known to invent missed tackles in the past or blamed the wrong player for the miss - so when did that one occur?
Whether you like itor not - Pietersen should at leas have tried to compete with the ball in air - he definitely did nothing of the sort.

No OOm you have claimed I invented missed tackles, but have always been proven wrong. Just look at the build up to the Bowe try . Rejnach also isolated himself and got turned shortly after that. It's harder when you aren't running hrough wide open space.
Our scrummies were awful...that was our biggest proble. The second biggest was we can't compete on the deck. The third is our centres are not a partnership. JP has to get the nod at 13 against the Poms. 

 Balls - you are a regular in that regard and find excuses for missed tackles and you are the one that fabricate stories in the relevant regard.   No further comment on the missed tackle by Reinach - but suddenly he was isolated in the irish 22 and that was the built up to the Irish try.   That happened at leat 10 minutes before the try was actually scored.
I agree Hougaard was poor on Saturday - back to his 2012 performances - but there was no indication that Reinach was poor at all.   He was adequate - and that was all we could expect behind a forward pack who was totally out of contention in maul situations.   You onbiously missed entirely the players who handled the ball before the Pietersen try in any event.      
What will make JP a better center to get the nod in the third test.   He was a defensive liability in that position in the past (against Wales)  - what will ensure that he is not the same in future?  His only moment of glory was against the sub-par Scots  - where every player looked like a champion.   Howevr defense was always his problem in every game he played at 13 - since 2012 in Super 15 and the reason Plumtree moved him back to wing.   
Pietrsen's main problem is his serious lack of pace and he has the same problem in that regard as Fourie has.   Fourie is better in defense than he is.   Both are poor in attacking play.   
    

Mike for the record, Bowe's try was scored on Habana's wing. Pietersen was nowhere near that.

Serfontein made the dummy and break to put Pietersen away for his try.

Reinach did miss S3xton as I show in a thread I just posted about Bowe's try.