Which Bok Team For Australia?

Now that Willie has been ruled out, we must approach our remaining tests a little differently. As much as this is a big loss, it's a great opportunity to try out some alternatives. I'm also very disappointed that Am will not be available. My initial impression of the last game was that he made a few errors, but he was actually rock solid throughout. Damian is no loss, though I don't appreciate the nature of his absence. At least Faffy is Available, I think his unavailability would have been a stake through our heart.

So much of our game ran through Willie, and that has me wondering, who is the better distributor, Jantjies or Pollard? Something I do like about Jantjies' game is the way he will take the ball to the line and assess his options. I think he has a better range of passes than Pollard. This leads me to wonder about Pollard at 12. As much as I like Esterhuizen, and as faultless as he has been all year, Pollard provides a skillset that none of our other 12s possess, namely a strong kicking game. His physical and abrasive running is very damaging to the opposition. His defence is very good. So, in light of Willie's absence, I'm seriously considering this 10-12 combination.

As for 13, we have no option but to play Kriel. I think we can say that his work on the wing was a failure overall. I credited his organizational ability in the latter portion of the Wellington test, but that was at 13 anyway. His work on the wing was awful. Our other option is Mapoe, who has yet to really contribute in any meaningful way. He looks rather subdued, and was physically out of his depth against Los Pumas. 

Now onto fullback. Willemse or Kolbe? Consideringthe outstanding Mapimpi is also unavailable, Kolbe is the most likely to start on the wing. This means Willemse at fullback. I have no idea how he'll fare, but we should find out and the Aussies will be provide a good opportunity to assess him.

I'd really like us to find a place for Snyman. I really like this player alot. His abrasive and competitive edge is what we need. He has some niggle to his game, but nothing sinister. All the great Bok packs had that edge. With Snyman at lock, we could move Mostert to 7, and I think that'd work out much better. 

Starting XV

1. Kitshoff
2. Bongi
3. Malherbe
4. Etzebeth (c) 
5. Snyman
6. Kolisi 
7. Mostert
8. Whiteley 
9. De Klerk
10. Jantjies
11. Dyantyi
12. Pollard
13. Kriel
14. Kokbe
15. Willemse 

Fullback looks to be the weakest position. We need Kriel at 13, and Kolbe on the wing. We really are in a bind here. I know it'll most likely derail our two tests, but I'm glad Rassie is being forced to consider our options minus Willie. In 2015, Willie was in awful form by the time the WC came around, which was quite problematic. We need an alternative. 

The moment you two fools leave out Du Toit and Malherbe and suggest Jantjies at flykalf the loss of the game against Australia is imminent.  Pollard at inside center is also a dead loss. 

The defense in the channel will be near to non-existent,     

Fools? How else do you suppose we make up for the loss of Willie? I'd trust a Jantjies-Pollard combo far more than a Pollard-Damian combo. It gives us two kickers, two distributors we can play off and a solid punch runner at 12 with good defence and organizational ability. They can switch around.

After it became clear that Le Roux will not be available for the remaining two tests and the fact that a number of players will not be available due to injury leave space for changes as well.

Looking at the situation I have my doubt about a number of layers as well - so my team selection will be the following:-

15   Willemse, 14  Combrinck/Kolbe, 13  Kriel, 12  Esterhuizen, 11 Dyantyi, 10 Pollard, 9  De Klerk, 8  Whiteley/Coetzee, 7  Du Toit, 6  Kolisi, 5  Snyman, 4  Etzebeth, 3  Malherbe, 2 Marx, 1 Kitshoff.

One of our scrumming and breakdown problems is that Mostert is not really physical enough and strengthening  those two aspects.  I would however, have Wilco Louw, Kolbe and Mostert on the bench.  If Whiteley starts Coetzee should be on the bench.

I think that Combrinck have two assets, Combrinck (although slightly slow as a wing) should be physical enough to compete against the opposing Ozie wing who is  no speed merchant as well.  On the positive side Combrinck can help in covering for Willemse at full back and he can play there as well should player  changes be needed.        

Combrinck is definitely slow, but strong. He is a smart player though. However, one of our strengths is speed. We need to capitalize on that. 

I am a bit worried about Kolbe - other than perhaps at full back.    He was not really the defender he should be against bigger players and would rather not see him on the wing..

However, I think indications are that Willemse will play as a starter in the Aussie game - the chances of having him gain test experience before the WC are becoming very limited.

I am worried very much about the center position s well.   Mapoe looked much better when he played recently - but on test level he is relatively inexperienced.  I think the problem is defense, where I have a rather serious problem with Eserhuizen.   To play Mapoe next to him could present a very serious problem from a defensive perspective.  Maybe Mapoe on the wing ahead of Combrinck, but he as a smallish player who  may also have problems with defending against the big Aussie wings.   

It is indeed a  nightmare with two or three players out with injury.  Despite all the attacks on De Allende he is a key player in the backline and then we have Am, Nkosi and Mapimpi out as well with Le Roux on vacation in England.       

Mozart

You are entirely entitled to your unique opinions - sometimes totally misleading.  There was no scrums in the AB test going back and that scrum where Owens got it wrong was while Malherbe was still on the field.   What you left out completely is the huge amount of work Malherbe did outside of scrumming - in the last two tests he made 24 tackles - with no missed tackles as well.   Louw is a relative non-factor outside of scrumming.

Dream on about the Du Toit issue - your figures are totally distorted.   Of one thing you can be sure - Du Toit will always be favoured ahead of Mostert because he is he better all-round player -  proven as such at both lock and no 7.  Prejudice is ignored by real rugby analysts.    Du Toit is a big advantage iro physical strength ahead of Mostert an d that makes a huge difference in forward performance.      

Clever Mike, you talk like a neo-liberal crackpot with their "eff hate" doctrine, but in the process become the most hateful. There is no prejudice in what we have written, nor any bias. Certainly no hate. I can quote your hatred of several players, so best not push the issue any further. In other words, don't pull the rug from under your own feet. 

Now, you can put your big boy pants on and we can discuss the issues with maturity. Simples. 

No Prejudice - the most amazing comment coming from you and even more so from Mozart.   Can you really say that and think it really is the case?  LMAO

Mozart

Just a question - can you read English?   That garbage you wrote about Owens and Malherbe is total BS and you should know that it is.  

Anyway one has to accept that whatever you write is totally fact-deficient and only the result of prejudice.   So keep on making a fool of yourself and don't expect sympathy from other thinking members.  

"Who the right wing and fullback should be beats me. "...Mozart says?

Beats me too...the absence of Willie at this stage (should have negotiated a complete deal with Wasps) but I suppose Rassie was experimenting and did not forsee how valuable Le Roux would turn out...he is without doubt,  a breath of fresh air into a side, apart from a playmaker and match winner.

I have no doubt we would have failed in at least 4 or 5 times...he is one of those players that's the spark that sets the gunpowdwer alight.

Common sense tells one that Jesse Kriel can only be fullback in his absence. We will soon see how valuable he (Willie Le Roux) is...

If only Kriel wasn't played out of position all these years! 

Now? He is our only option at 13, aside from Mapoe. We could have used Serfontein. Good cover at 12 and 13. I'm sure Rassie must be kicking himself at least a little. 

Mozart

I have read your latest two threads with utter amazement - either you do not understand English and what happened in that game with the penalty given to the AB's instead of the Springboks or you are deliberately misrepresented what I wrote.

If you choose to make a continuous fool of yourself I cannot help you.   However, I think that you are not a fool - rather a deliberate fraudster .     

I can find nothing concerning Am's injury. It is a great shame, as he was outstanding against New Zealand. We haven't had an outside centre play like that since Jaque Fourie. Against New Zealand when would have increased our odds of an unlikely repeat. Losing Mapimpi was another big loss. At least we know how our go to players are. We learned something from this RC. Am is a long way ahead of Kriel.

Clever Mike, I have been yet to berate Melherbe's performance against die Schwarzwelle, I thought he was actually outstanding, but his scrummaging did appear to be less steady than that of Wilco's. The Kiwi scrum really applied the pressure in desperation, and he held up well. That is quite a statement. 

AO

I am always amazed by your assessment of players.   Am was on the day average against the AB's.   All aspects of play - whether on attack or defending were acceptable, but two ball possession losses were negatives, 

On average I saw nothing that could be a base justify accolades and insofar as the reference to Jacque Fourie is concerned  there must be a clarification.   Before 2011 Jacque Fourie was outstanding - but after the return to Springbok rugby in 2013 and 2014 he was very poor.   He was way over-the-hill - slow and a defense liability in every game he played in.   He was in such poor physical condition in that period that when he turned up for the Springbok camp for the WC  in June 2015 even Meyer could not take it anymore and sent him packing.  So if you say what you did it clearly needed clarification.       

Starting XV

1. Kitshoff
2. Bongi   Marx
3. Malherbe
4. Etzebeth (c) 
5. Snyman
6. Kolisi 
7. Mostert    Du Toit
8. Whiteley 
9. De Klerk
10. Jantjies  Pollard
11. Dyantyi
12. Esterhuizen
13. Kriel 
14. Nkosi
15. Willemse 

Done!   

Here we have Du Toit playing superbly at 7 and the oaks want Mostert at 7!!! Hhahahaahahaha

Nkosi is i hear playing today so why not play him? Fine player. Leave Pollard at flyhalf as he had a good game last week. Kolbe's defence is not up to scratch.

The idea of dropping Malherbe right now is also absurd given what a great test he had against the wee abs. His scrumming was sound and outside the scrum he was excellent as born out by his super tackle count . Some oaks are smoking some very strong dope!

The one change to my team i would consider is the Pollard at center and Jantjies at flyhalf. May or may not be the better option.

My mind goes back to some very good moments Esterhuizen had in Super rugby , great touches but these skills has since vanished. Why cant he play that sort of rugby one wonders. Esterhuizen si mply has to make the best of his chances. Being a battering ram is not enough

and here's the thing, Mostert outscored Stephanie 36 to 18 on the Mozcroscope.

Dr Mozzzzz about time you retired that faulty, old, obsolete M ozcroscope that has been misleading you for some time. in the meanwhile you can rely on the ever trustworthy analysis of Beeno!

Herr Sitzsack, how do you account for Steph's defence in the first 40 minutes? Why do the Steph worshippers refuse to acknowledge these things? The glass is half full, but also half empty. Auge will always be here to provide the compete perspective.

Also, you missed the great work Esterhuizen has done already! He should never have been dropped for the mythical loafer called Damian. All he needs is a spiral horn on his forehead to seal the deal! 

AO

As written elsewhere I am amazed at your interpretation of performances.   Like is the case with Mozart it has nothing to do with actual performance - more to do with petty prejudice.   

Mostert had one good match after a series of very average ones playing at lock - now suddenly he has to play at 7 this coming test.   Like in the case of Du Toit - Erasmus asked the Lions to give Mostert playing time at 7 in Super Rugby, but it was not a success and the experiment did  not last very long.   

In the case of Du Toit he was good in every test - whether laying at lock and at 7.   You and your mate Mozart always try and belittle him  - so what is your real reason?    Petty and childish dislike seem to be the reason. 

The latest developments have forced me into changing my team - so here goes -

15   Willemse, 14  Nkosi/Kolbe, 13  Kriel, 12  Nel????, 11 Dyantyi, 10 Pollard, 9  De Klerk, 8  Whiteley/Coetzee, 7  Du Toit, 6  Kolisi, 5  Snyman, 4  Etzebeth, 3  Malherbe, 2 Marx, 1 Kitshoff.

"Dr Mozzzzz about time you retired that faulty, old, obsolete Mozcroscope that has been misleading you for some time"

Beeno, I've asked Moz to describe this secret weapon of analysis and how it functions but he has not been forthcoming.

It's rather like George Bush's field glass's observation ...looking for weapons of mass destruction but forgetting to remove the lens cap covers...Bahahahahahahaha

Hahahahaha...bahahahahahaha.

https://youtu.be/hI1nPd7hezM

Can't figure that out either...Moz and Organ Grinder seem to dislike this guy no matter what he does...the same with Patrick Lambie in the past but on the otherhand Ol'Maaikie also goes into a fit about Alberts, Morne Steyn, Fran Steyn and Matfield...it's like a vendetta...no matter whatever these players did, even when it was commendable they would fly into fit and contend arguments in the negative...never in the positive.

Lets face it, even if a player is not your favourite but plays a good move, or even has a good game surely it would be expected by the critic to at least have the honesty to say so...give acknowledgement and credit when it's due.

Afterall, common sense tells one that players of this league don't get into a side by accident or chance...they are all worthy of some credit and respect...I really don't understand it.

I seem to dislike the guy? How? By pointing out the pros and cons in a performance I rated 7 overall? That after I lauded how great he was in the first Puma test? How I lamented that Mostert did not perform to the level of Steph in the second Puma test? This is becoming quite childish! I evaluated his All Black performance and noted certain things I liked and things that I didn't. Where is the bias? Do we need a video? One wonders what good that will do as the groupies always deny every kind of evidence.

The problem is that Steph is yet another media darling who can do no wrong. Nobody can dare say a word against him. It's disgraceful that Am, who was faultless on defence in the most difficult defensive position on the field, is deemed "average" yet a player who twice allowed deep attacks via poor defence along with other errors is regarded as the player of the game. Why? Because he cried at the end of the game? 

If I am truly biased, it will be very easy to debunk the information posted about his contributions in that first 40 minutes. Information which was conveniently ignored in another thread. 

Ou Organhuffer trying to argue Du Toit cant tackle is an effort doomed to fail.

Actually what he did was point out a few defensive weaknesses that has been a constant problem for Steph. There's a big difference between that and "trying to argue Du Toit cant tackle".

Beeno, some of you guys have no idea how to debate critically. You want the praises of your heroes sung without reserve, otherwise you pull the bias card.

Pakie

Sure Du Toit has like every other player got weaknesses - but to constantly harp on the few he has without regard to positives  in his play is not showing any rugby intelligence.   It shows zero but total prejudice.

A player who tries to make as many tackles as Du Toit constantly makes - will also miss more tackle than one whose attempts are seriously limited.   I would rather have a player who constantly have a high tackle count of more than 12 tackles game  even if he misses three than have one like Louw who averaged 7 and missed a further 3 in the last two tests he started in.   There was NOT  single word of criticism on that score from either of you, OA and the despicable Mozart in that regard.

Then we have the classic of De Allende who made 42 tackles in his last four tests made 41 tackles and missed 5.  He is always criticized for poor defense, but when Esterhuizen made 22 tackles and missed 6 in the process a myth has to be developed that Esterhuizen always make strong tackles and there are no problems with his low tackle count.. 

The above are just two examples that indicates dishonesty on the part of the three of the most prejudiced members on this site.

Incidentally I have also criticized De Allende in the past - but I have never invented BS that nobody else saw in his case and then claims that the three of you are such good analysts that you can identify problems which no other analysts an coaches in the world could.    So not only dishonest and prejudiced - but also arrogant beyond belief.

Clean up your act and become objective and I will have some real rugby debates with you lot.    At present I am really not inclined to discuss prejudiced BS with you an d the other two.       

Then we have the classic of De Allende who made 42 tackles in his last four tests made 41 tackles and missed 5.  He is always criticized for poor defense, but when Esterhuizen made 22 tackles and missed 6

42, 41, 6. You really should get these numbers straight now, Mike.

37/5 for De Allende.

22/5 for Esterhuizen.

De Allende is solid in physical front on tackles, no problem. He is vulnerable when a player attacks the space either side of him. Reference Mike Brown, or ALB beating him on the inside in the lead up to the first All Black try. There are numerous examples over his career.

Tackle counts in games for the midfield will vary according to how the opposition plays and what areas they attack. They are not be all and end all indicators and you can't set the same figure for every game as a benchmark. If your team has only 30% possession, your players will make more tackles than when your team has 60% possession, etc.

Tackle stats don't tell you quality of the tackle either. Being dragged back, or holding onto feet while an offload is made. Or worse, stopping power provided by a tackle assist, this is a common one. Stats tell you almost nothing and can often be exposed as worthless when the video comes out. 

Pakie 

So you blame De Allende for that try and Mozart blames Du Toit - so what have we got here.   Another case of mania - Esterhuizen is constantly beaten by players both sides of him - yet one case is enough to seal the fate of De Allende.  

By the way I was wrong about the stats.  I used provisional stats of ESPN from what I wrote earlier - so I apologize,

AO

So stats means nothing - dreamed-up BS reigns supreme.  What a farce,