What would you rather face in the RWC......

With the options I would go with Reinach at 9 and Pollard at 10.
du Preez did not impress me at all other than his first cameo off the bench. After that he did nothing of note. Reinach has some real clout about him.

What's da matter with Branco Du Preez if it's snap crackle and pop you're after as opposed to the bumbling Hougaard and sometimes erratic Reinach.   

 Mozart
Is cracking up again.  Badly so.  He makes a first choice of Du Preez entirely based on reputation - not performances.  Du Preez's service was not good at all - much slower than he used to be- his defense is questionable and he is not a danger around the fringes anymore.
The choice should be Pollard/Goosen and Reinach.   Goosen is playing top notch rugby for his club.   Mozart's favourite - Morne Steyn - is not making the starting line-up for his club at all.
Lambie is one of the key bench impact players in this case.

 Thinking about " What would you rather face in the RWC......"  - is actually a good question by opposition teams.
I would cut it down to a simple answer:-
"The concition of has-beens and incomptent players se;lected by  the circus clown coach of SA.   If the team was selected on performance based criteria - I would rather not face up against them.   

Occasional bomb and Fourie du Preez doesn't belong in the same sentence.  

The very simple, basic lesson that the "intellectuals" on this site don't grasp is WC rugby is won by big personalities....players who can impose themselves on the opposition, and win their individual battles. Competitors.
That was the problem with Spies. It's also the problem with Mvovo, Hendricks, JJ, Step, Lambie, Goosen, Lomp, Malherbe, Mohoje and a host of others.
Then you have players who actually are competitors like Hougaard, Raainacht, Coetzee and Coenie....that are competitive, but have one or more fatal flaws.

We may have to select some of these guys, because there is no better alternative. But each one is a point of weakness, select more than a few and we lose for sure. Select two as your half backs and you lose for sure as we saw against Wales and in the S15 semi.

The RWC is won by the most aggressive competitors.

There comes a time in any player's career where even experience can't make up for loss of speed, loss of muscle mass, or reaction time.  

The best players have to be on the pitch to win the world cup. Players like Habana, Schalk and Fourie Dupreez are past their best, but still better than the alternatives. This will be especially true in big matches. 

 Still say Kolbe needs to move to scrummie pronto. This guy appears to have it all but needs t obe tested. Pollard is obviously the flyhalf.We saw Bronco Du Preez palying I recall for the bulle without much effect. However he needs to finda spot somewhere and be givien a run.
DSu Preez has the rugby brain but once again needs tp play some Super rugby to assess him. Burger is not to old and shoudl make the squad as should Habana.
Senatla and Van Wyk are new wings to try.

Kolbe and Senatala should have got game time at the end of the year tour last year. Kolbe was not even in the squad. 
Both should be pushing Leroux and Habana for the positions. Kolbe is a better defender than Willie Leroux, and from what I have seen he has a better territoria l kicking game. 

 I am talking about Kolbe as a scrummie - as he plays in sevens. The guy is probably the most elusive runner in world rugby. Idea is to have willie, Senatla and Kolbe to dazzle the opposition. Jan and allended at center Pollard at flyhlaf and Habana on the wing :Kolbe, Habana, Jan , Allende, Senatla and Willie.NOw that backline backed up by the speedster Kriel will wreck havoc. Run rings around the wee abs for sure! THEY DO NOT HAVE RUNNERS LIKE kOLBE SENATLA AND WILLIE.
kRIEL COVERING THE BACKLINE AND GETTING TO THE BREAKDOWN FIRST ETC. MAN WITH A LITTLE IMAGINATION WE COULD SOCK IT TO THEM IN THE FORWARDS AND BLITZE THEM IN THE BACKS!BUT OU MAYER IS LOOKING FOR SOME TACTICAL KICKING FROM KIRCHNER HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT A JOKE! BULLE RULES OAKS!

Beeno1
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 13278RE: What would you rather face in the RWC......
December 07, 2014, 20:07:45 I am talking about Kolbe as a scrummie - as he plays in sevens. The guy is probably the most elusive runner in world rugby. Beeno he will have more space out wide as a wing or fullback and utilise his elusive running more. 
He may not be able to use his elusive running from the scrum half position in the 15 man game where their is less space.
A scrumhalf has to have a great pass as his core skill, with others like elusive running being secondary. (Think Hougaard, a wing playing scrumhalf). 
Although I have not seen him play for the 7's at 9. Maybe he does have a good enough passing game...

 Sharkbok his passing is very good. he hasa good boot and thinks quickly the loose forwards would have to watch him like a hawk. Blindside breaks etc littlle chips.I tell you what I would be very surprised if he would not be a LOT better than Aaron Smith. By playing him scrummie you keep Willie. Add in Senatala and Pollard's playing making ability and attacking flair  etc and we would, without any doubt, have the most dangerous backline in the world - backed up by the world's dominant pack of forwards.
However Meyer is blind to opportunity! 

 Mozart
"players who can impose themselves on the opposition"

If you think that players like Matfield, Alberts and Jannie can impose themselves on anybody - you ust be joking.   The only imposing they would be is on the laughing muscles.   They are way past their best. 
Incidentally BIG PERSONALITIES  have lost more World Cups than they have won.   If BIG PERSONALITIES was the norm why did no team ever won a WC in succession.   That is why your statement is such a load of BS in the first instance.
tTeams that won WC has been selected on the basis of performance - nothing else.   The moment you start selecting players on the basis of reputation - you are going straight down.   The BIG PERSONALITIES you wantin the team was in the 2011 squad - and what happened then?   Whart makes you think thatthey would do bettr in 2015 than they did in 2011?
If you can answer the last question logically then I would withdrawn my statement that you are indeed writing absolute BS. 
   

 Beeno, whilst I think Kolbe would be a great scrummie, I think you take away a lot of his qualities there. I think the best thing about him though is that he can be molded into a very good player in a number of positions

 Back, Wilkinson, Johnson, Greenwood.....Monty, Habana, F du Preez, Matfield, Schalk...McCaw, Reid, Thorne.

These are the players who have won the last 3 RWCs. Mature guys who were able to do that little bit more to win the thing. Average age of the winners north of 27. 

Yep this issue with clinging onto experience is costing us. Experience is vital but not at the expense of better youngsters. 
The Boks have more than enough experience to lean on in JP, Habana, Frans, Beast, Bismark, Strauss, Brussouw and Vermeulen in terms of age and now in terms of caps the likes of Lambie, Serfontein, Hougaard, Coenie, Etzebeth and Coetzee.
This is a core of experience and where experience should end with the Boks.  The rest of the squad should be made up of the best of our youngsters of which there are many to choose from.

 Mozart
YUou have avoided the question I asked like a plague and came up with the names of players "who won world Cups"
But you have not answered a plain question - why did no team ever won the WC twice in succession.    All the players you listed were in previous WC winning teams and they did not perform in the succeeding WC.
Let me be blunt - it is bcause all of them were too far north over 27 years of age - by the time the second WC came along.   
But what aboutthe real question:-
"The BIG PERSONALITIES you want in the team was in the 2011 squad - and what happened then?   Whart makes you think that they would do better in 2015 than they did in 2011?"
All the rest of you argument  is verbal diarrhea at best

You are confused OOm. It isn't about one team it's at least about 4 different teams that won the last 4 world cups. Any of these  teams  has a 25 per cent chance at best of winning the RWC, as that shows. Winning two in a row, even if there is strong positive causation from one event to the next, drops to  six per cent.
If you had any quantitative awareness , you wouldn't ask such a revealingly stupid question. 

 Mozart
You never write anthing - but rank BS.  The real problem is that the players who won World Cups get retained inteams in the enxt WC  - when they are way past their best and under-performed.    That has been the case in each of the WC's since 1987.   Fact.   With the exception of Montgomery the Springboks you quoted have all been in the 2011 WC and they all under-perormed then.   That is a fact of life - the 25% story is BS since the performance of players - not their "presence" - determines outcome of games.
The idea to hang on to players because theywere part of a WC winning team - without proper evaluation of their performance is the reson why the history of WC's is essentially repettive.   You are shouting and screaming about Matfield and some others - but those are exactly theplayers who do not perform and then you find excuses for them or refuse to recognize theirpresent deficiencies.   
Get it into your head - there comes a time in any player's career where even experience can't make up for loss of speed, loss of muscle mass, or reaction time.   BB has summed it up perfectly in this case.

 

 I recall the wallabies in 1995 coming to SA with a big name squad and loosing to the Boks in the opening game! They were just a bit over the hill. Like the wee abs and very sadly now like the some of the Bok players chiefly wee victor - he of course never went up the hill. Bwahahahahhaha

 I recall the wallabies in 1995 coming to SA with a big name squad and loosing to the Boks in the opening game! They were just a bit over the hill. Like the wee abs and very sadly now like the some of the Bok players chiefly wee victor - he of course never went up the hill. Bwahahahahhaha

But the Wallabies who won in 99 should have won again in 2003, and would have if they had a tighthead. The Poms who won in 2003 were an inch of chalk away from possibly repeating in 2007. And the Boks had a great chance in 2011, but we're blown out of the game by a cheat.

The prior WC winners have been very competitive.

 Mozart
The fact remains in the word BUT and the other favourite word of yours IF.
The fact is those two words - make assumptions that could not be sustained by facts.   If my auntoe had balls - she would  have been my uncle.   The fact remains you solely blame the so-called Wallaby Tighthead situations for their loss against Englad - typically Mozart.   
You also blame the fact that England did not score a try for their loss in the 2007 WC.
Fact is the two teams lost and the ifs and buts counts for nothing.   They were so-called competitive - but they did not win.   
Do you think that SA was competitive in 2011 - they definitely were not.    Elsewhere is a thread that deals with Dr Venter's observations about the EOYT and indicate we will definitely not be competitive in the upcoming WC and state the reasons for his comments.  Those reasos are in direct contrast with your comments about the team requirements.                 So - who knows better - Dr V enter or the person stcuk in the past insofar as rugby thinking is concerned?

OOm I do think SA was very competitive in 2011. Thanks for asking.  

 Just scaping through against Wales in the pool games - and losing in the quarterfinals - sure they were very competitive according to you and a disaster according to anyone else.   
I am not surprised by your comments - because the 2011 team was basically made up of 2007 WC players - and you want 6 of the 2007 playrs in the 2 015 WC.   The disaster will be bigger in 2015 than it was in 2011.