Which changes will be made to the Springbok side iro the second Argentine test next week

The following from News24:-

"

Springbok coach Rassie Erasmus will make “four or five” changes to his side for their clash against Argentina in Mendoza this coming weekend. 

The Boks leave for South America on Monday having secured a 34-21 bonus point win against the Pumas at Kings Park on Saturday. 

While the Boks got the job done in the end, they were far from their best, especially in the first half. 

The bigger picture for Erasmus, though, is the World Cup in Japan next year and he will continue to tweak his side to give as many opportunities as possible to those who he considers in the running to make that squad. 

Erasmus will want to give the likes of Marco van Staden and Damian Willemse, who both made their Bok debuts in Durban, more game time while there are other players on the fringes who could feature too. 

Erasmus confirmed after Saturday that flyhalf Elton Jantjies would "definitely" be part of the 28-man touring party, while Franco Mostert is also expected to be included.

"We will make a few changes to our team and there will definitely be a difference to the 28 that goes on tour," Erasmus said.

"We will definitely select a different team with four or five changes when we go over there."

If Erasmus does make the change at flyhalf to accommodate Jantjies' return, then Pollard could move to No 12 in a move that would see Andre Esterhuizen left out. 

Pollard, who kicked two from seven at Kings Park and struggled throughout, moved to inside centre when Willemse came on at flyhalf with just under 20 minutes to go on Saturday.

"We would have liked to put Damian on at No 15 but the game was always tight, so there was never a chance," Erasmus explained.

"Elton will definitely go on tour with us and we'll play around a bit with what we think they are going to throw at us and what we think is the best team to handle that.

"Will will pick the best team, with growth towards the World Cup in mind." 

The above made for interesting reading - especially insofar as Pollard, Louw and Esterhuizen are concerned and there are also earlier remarks as to Le Roux which is to be borne in mind.

The writer brings in Jantjies - but I doubt it very much if he would get another chance as a starter.   He failed in all tests he played in thus far and I think Erasmus would hessite about him as well.   As to Louw his productivity yesterday was low-key at best and he would be lucky to get a bench selection.

So what is the team likely to look like in the test on Saturday?

15  Le Roux, 14  Dyantyi,  13  Am,  12  Pollard, 11  Mapimpi, 10  Willemse, 9  Papier, 8  Du Toit, 7  Kolisi, 6  Van Staden, 5  Mostert, 4  Etzebeth, 3  Malherbe, 2  Marx, 1  Mtawarira

16  Van der Merwe, 17  Kitshoff, 18  Louw, 19  Snyman, 20  Whiteley, 21  De Klerk, 22  Jantjies, 23  Kriel   

Louw, being one of the most productive players on the field, will be required throughout the tournament. 

Do you know what the term productive means - stupid?   Apparently not - as is the case with virtually all the players you support,  

Seb

I agree with you about changes = we all saw what happened in the English test.

However, I do not think the four changes I mentioned would really weaken the team - especially in view of the actual performances of the players involved - other than perhaps De Klerk.   The other three was very average on Saturday.

I believe that Erasmus realizes that we are very thin on the ground in certain positions and the centers, halfbacks and loosies are the most problematic.   That is why I think he will make the changes I listed,   He will not enter the WC with a squad where  most of the newbies had less than 10 tests -  ie with virtually near to zero test experience - like what happened in 2015..   When the over-the-hills players failed badly in the Japan test - Meyer had to fall back on players with extremely little experience.   For instance De Allende and Kriel only had three tests as a center combination and had to play for the rest of the WC as such .  

I do not think Erasmus will want to be get caught in such a situation..      

You could say Jean had a poor test against Japan. Though that was his first game after a lengthy spell out. Kriel has no such excuse, Du Toit was poor, Bismarck was poor, Lambie was poor, Pienaar was average. Kriel cost the Boks the game. We already saw how you attacked the most productive players. You were crying when I presented to you the actual facts of the game.

If only these fan favourites produced for Meyer, they might have had a few more caps and been around longer. He gave many players an opportunity, so few rewarded him. You seem to have backed most if not all if these losing horses.

As for game 2, I don't think Pollard will be a good move at 12. We don't play through our centres, so we lose the impact Pollard does bring to the game for an erratic 10. Esterhuizen was fine. This was the best and most stable centre play I have seen for a while now. I'd retain the duo and work on establishing at least one partnership. This is the most promising new pairing for many years. 

Definitely. Pointless playing Pollard at 12 if that is not going to be his regular position.

In any event there is also Pakie's pet hate De Allende who obviously is Erasmus first choice 12  He will not be available for the  next test - but for the succeeding tests

I agree with Shark and Pakie...definitely keep Esterhuizen and Am together...I think that pair still has something to perfect...no it's not quite the ideal as yet but a lot better than the recent past...maybe I'm missing something but I can see potential there and yes I like them both...the big plus is that they know each others play (from the Sharks) and can build from that...that makes horse sense to me.

Mozart

Stop talking tripe please.   You know well e3nough that you have falsified so many instances involving those two players you really should stop lying on site.

In all cases you lied and that is a fact as well.   You lied about the fact that De Allende missed the tackle on Nonu -  as well as the first story about a missed tackle on Kuridrrani when the latter  lost the ball in the process and a scrum being formed and the fact was that De Jongh was in the first case responsible to defend against Kuridrani and he did not. .  I however never said that De Allende was not to be blamed for the later Kuridrani try in another match - even though the person who missed the first tackle attempt in that case was Jannie du Plessis.   Same with the Brown try where the first missed tackle was by Pollard,  

The same trend was in the case of the Barrett try in the 2013 test,   No mention of De Villiers going out o the defensive line and the first missed tackle was by Morne Steyn.

All cases mentioned  there sis one trend on your part - the contribution by your favoured players must be hidden away and the blame must entirely placed on your pet hates,  What does that mean?   It means that you lied about the situation and that you are dishonest by trying to exonerate your favourites by not being honest about incidents and thus lying about the situations.   You should be ashamed of yourself and the fact that equally big BSters agree with you must be further prove of the lies they do not hesitate to spread

But then - when nobody but you blamed De Allende for the Barrett try - you and your fellow BSter suddenly became top experts in rugby analysis as stated by yourself on site,.  You are not only dishonest - you have a bloated self-opinion that is equal to the worst characteristics in humans.   

I never criticized players unless they factually under-performed and I did criticize De Allende in the past - but I do not invent BS to justify criticism.   And in the latest Louw incident the only difference was that Du Toit was wider out from the maul covering another player than Louw was in the case on Saturday,   You were too dishonest to admit the similarity in the cases.  

So good luck to your future dishonest campaigns.   I hate lies and deception - and will totally  ignore your dishonest BS in future.   And the same iro the equally dishonest Pakie and Again BSter with the same campaigns as you have.   /         .   

Now Morné missed Barrett? For how many games do I have to cover very basic concepts? The Bok's were short of numbers. New Zealand had a POD ready to attack the seam, so he calls for support while guarding that side of the ruck. There was a player who engaged Morné first though, he targeted his outside shoulder and allowed Barrett to pivot round the back and break free between 10 and 12. What alerted the carrier to the opportunity was Jean jumping out of the line, so the space behind him was what New Zealand attacked. Morné tracked Barrett but could not close the distance as Barrett ran away from him and into JJ. He fended off JJ and scored. The Clever Mike Version is a barefaced lie. 

The Louw and Du Toit scenarios are entirely different because they had different defensive duties with differing levels of line integrity around them. Louw wasn't engaged by Sanchez. Du Toit was engaged. This is a very, very basic truth. Very. It's shocking how dishonest you are. 

And to add insult to injury, Louw was never my favourite 6. Still isn't. Morné was never my man for 10. I was happy with Jean until Frans. I even thought Malherbe had a good game, another who isn't my favourite. Come to think of it, I don't know what player I'd have as my favourite. I don't really think about it. I supposedly worship Morné yet I was happy for Pollard to have a shot as starter. Out of your mouth cascades a flow of thoughtless twaddle. Rest assured, I'll continue to call you out each and every time I read your nonsense. 

Bluebok

I am going to ignore the BSters in future and I can only hope that you and other members realize with whom you are being subjected to when reading their prejudiced BS and distortions on site.  

Despite their distortions and lies I am not going to leave the site,         

Fancy that, he who laments a plot to remove him from the board is calling for apartheid on Ruckersforum. Laughable. You get exposed for nothing that you know and now you seek to poison everyone else. And you accused me of being less than human 

The least impactful forwards were Kolisi and Whitely. A test against the All Blacks will tell us much, so I'd hope that Rassie has the good sense to keep the team together. We don't need to break up the team for proven failures and waste time. We don't have the kurixy of building depth when we don't even have a settle first XV. Build the foundation before trying to build an elaborate third floor.