Which of the 5 games we lost is on the Coaches

What????????????????? BS again!!!!!!!

The Boks were dominant against Wales. They lost very late in the game due to two consecutive charge downs through the boot of Robert Du Preez, which led directly to a game winning try. I can't blame Rassie for this loss.

The England series was a mixed bag. The English let us off the hook in those first two tests. It was a very scrappy Bok showing in spite of the comebacks. The third test was a very scrappy game, which I largely attribute to the conditions. It was dominated by the boot. A very simplistic gameplan was implemented. I would say this was the very first real test for Rassie, not the Welsh game. He was implementing his game and working through personnel. I'll let him off with this one.

The Puma loss was a tactical failure. They tried a cavalier approach which backfired. The Pumas repeatedly caught the Boks behind the gainline. They on the otherhand did the hard yards which opened up the game. Rassie was out coached. 

The Brisbane loss was largely a tactical blunder. He selected Damian and Jantjies to bring attacking power to the game; it backfired. Despite plenty of front foot ball Damian was impotent. Jantjies was anonymous for most of the game. Some of the errors were down to the players, such as Marx' overthrow in our 22 which led to a try. This was the worst performance of the RC.

The Loftus loss is squarely on Rassie. This is very unfortunate as his tactics were on point. He did everything and then placed a stick of dynamite in his mouth and lit the fuse. It could have been the defining game of his career, the day Rassie stuffed the All Blacks, winning back-to-back tests. The fact the bench had so much chaff also falls on him. That Damian stuffed up and failed to create space for the attack also falls on Rassie. I assert we'd have a couple more tries in that first half if André was playing. We may have held out on that goal line stand When Damian let New Zealand pour in behind only to be stopped centimetres from the line. André would have made the stop for a loss, stalling their momentum. 

The most recent game was lost because the team stopped doing the things that got them into the lead. Rassie was forced to make most of the changes that he did. Still the leadership on the field was lacking and it saw us kicking the ball away when we should have been keeping it in hand. 

Agree on Wales. That game was in the bag, unluckily for RDP, he's gotta wear that one. 

The England series was odd. Especially considering the way the games began in each of the three tests. A win is win though. So it's tough to fault either the players or Rassie for the third game.

All in all, the Wales result and the most recent AB could easily have been different. In which case it'd have been a great season for Rassie and the players.

The end of year tour will obviously reveal more. Since if the ABs are weak right now, then balancing the Bok season on a win against them might be misleading.

The Argie result is a huge stain on the season. Wasn't the general consensus that R assie was outcoached? I tend to agree there.

Aug, we're both noobs because I see even less of the Allende light than you do. 

He had a shit ton of ball on Saturday. Rohan, with than much ball would have made an few clean breaks. Esterhuizen has yet to play in a test where he gets half as much ball.

Damian is not a 12. His first inclination is to look for space. He had two good carries, buy note how he slows down when there is no space. On Saturday, he was the slowest player on attack. The rest of the Boks were playing lights out. I have never seen Kriel play like that before, he was absolutely like lightning striking the defensive line. Damian should haven been doing the hard yards to create space. He created nothing and botched a couple of phases. His defence was nowhere.

It's remarkable how the fans continue to gush over him. He w as comprehensively outplayed by André this season. 

I am fine with André and Serfontein, but if Rohan is all that, I'd be fine with checking him out. A real 12 deserves a chance. 

Interesting rugbyblog (thanks MataHari))

http://billsrugbyblog.com/south-africa-30-vs-new-zealand-32/

The look on their faces at the end tells me this hurt them.

That is the standard story - every game loss (whether he played or not) is blamed on De Allende.    

That is the standard story - every game loss (whether he played or not) is blamed on De Allende.

Aaaand right down to kindergarten level we go with another strawman.

Bill makes some astute observations, like noting the poor general play and breakdown work before the crucial penalty. His numbers are way off compared to ESPN though, don't know where he got them.

Also have to say Snyman went miles down in my estimation on Saturday. He looked passive and disinterested.

What ESPN stats have you used iro Fat Fransie.   The stats have been checked and rechecked and was on site at least three times.   Mozart's response has been to moan and say that Fat Fransie's value in the team is not reflected by the stats.

I think that the anti De Allende campaign by our three great world best rugby analysts - as proclaimed by Mozart - is so ridiculous,  further discussion is not realistic.   It will serve no purpose.      

three great world best rugby analysts - as proclaimed by Mozart

No, as proclaimed by Mike. Please take ownership of your nonsense.

There is a common cord in the matches lost - in each of the first three lost matches there was a common cord, namely either Jantjies or Esterhuizen or both together played for the Springboks.   Esterhuizen was poor in three of the four tests he played in and Jantjies failed in all the tests he started in.   The combination of the two made matters worse,

The problem was that Erasmus inherited a totally poor squad from his two predecessors and there also was injury problems affecting some players.   He had to start assembling a squad - since the useful players he inherited was very limited and even those were out of rugby for long periods.

He further had to contend with the quota system SARU is insisting on and the quota players inherited from Meyer and Coetzee was a joke in bad taste.   He had to try and find real players that he could use.   He had a few real options to find out in matches who are usable and who not.

Two matches present themselves as options, namely -

*   the test against Wales; and 

*   the dead rubber test against England.

Those two matches were basically used to find out about potential players and the  results reflected the true situation.   Most players in the Wales test were sent packing and did not feature in the succeeding squads.   Some players were given repeat chances in the two Argentine tests and the team sent to Argentina and Jantjies was even given a further chance starting in the Australia as well.

There is another hobby horse of Mozart and that is playing of traditional Springbok rugby - whatever that means.   Since 2010 the Springboks played a tragically negative game plan virtually restricting the backline to only defense.  Meyer was dead honest about it when he stated that the SA backline players lacked the necessary ball sense to play a ball-in-hand game.   Backline attacks became a really rare scene and was only in evidence when Le Roux came on the scene, but later became even less when he found that backline players would not be of help in his endeavours.  He was even dropped from the team completely.

Now back to the playing style adopted by Erasmus.   It is completely different from anything used by either Meyer and Coetzee.   Despite the factual situation AO will write a book about how magnificent Meyer's game plan was - but even if there was one - implementation did not happen or was not even noticed by anybody.

Unlike under Meyer and Coetzee - where flyhalfs routinely kicked more than 50% of the balls they handled - the number of kicks made by Pollard has been reduced to a much lower figure.   Fact is the Meyer era put both the performance of Le Roux and Pollard in jeopardy and 

*    Meyer went so far as to replace Pollard as starting flyhalf in tests; and 

*    Coetzee never selected Le Roux to play when he was coach

There is indeed a vast difference between the present performance of the Springboks - one only have o look at the fact that both centers scored a try against the All Blacks - something not possible and not even dreamed about  in the Meyer era.

Fact is that the Springboks comprising of so many untried and new players are doing things not dreamed about in the past - and it is still early days,   There is huge scope for further development and that will happen as the players gain confidence and improve their skills according to the principles applied by Erasmus.

There obviously are still some team changes and strengthening of the team required, but that will also happen sooner rather than later,    For the first time in years I see a brighter future for the Springboks.  

where flyhalfs routinely kicked more than 50% of the balls they handled

Utter nonsense. It takes a quick glance at Pollard's 2014 - 2017 stats to see he didn't kick even close to 50% of his possessions. Not even Morne kicked more than 50% of his possession. He kicked more than Pollard, but nowhere near 50%.

You just have no damn clue what you are talking about, do you? Even with the stats readily available for you to make sure of your facts, you still can't get it right.

Go back and see what happened with Morne as flyhalf.   I said there was an improvement when Pollard became flyhalf and you as per normal do not understand the English language.  

Listen BSter - I do not create my own stats like you do when posting your match reports.   I normally use ESPN stats and do not cook them like AO and you do.   I do not feel like going back to the stats to confirm what I wrote in the past, because it is a fruitless exercise - you, Mozart and AO   will still carry on with your regular BS.    

I do not feel like going back to the stats to confirm what I wrote in the past

I suggest you do. Because you're getting it wrong. You are one of the most regular posters here. If you have any respect for the board, its members and the game of rugby, take the trouble to get your facts straight. You are willfully deceiving people.

I said get Mozart to lift the previous threads about Steyn's stats and put it on site.

I am not going to go back another time to the stats and found the same thing and then have you, Mozart  and AO to wait a few months and start the same BS all over.  

Go back? You pluck them out of thin air. You are a wriggly wee wirm. A wirm on the run.

Mozart 

The normal BS from Mozart - the top blindside loosie in the RC and Mozart try  to couple the Springbok losses to him.  Sick mind if there was anything. 

Why don;t you help your feeble-minded friends and put the thread where Fat Fransie's stats was evaluated on site.  But then you would not want you and the two other  imbeciles embarrassed again.   

A feeble minded person would blame a player for a loss in a game they didn't play in. Such as Morné against Krasny Yar. Or Morne's supposed demotion at the hands of Jake White. Or the fiasco with with Morné and Goosen regarding substitutions and the tries which occurred thereafter. Or Willemse's intercept in the game that he did but didn't play in. The list goes on and on. You should be looking for your lost marbles, not prattling away here!

Listen dimness when I make a mistake about a player I apologize  and admit it.   I did not write BS about any connection between White and useless Morne,  

Anyway you are so besotted with De Allende that I believe you even blame him for losses  in game he did not play in.   Like the Japan disaster for instance.

Must be terrible to hate a player to death and then find he is in the team as a key player .        

He also said every kick was aimless, that Morné was the worst kicker in all of world rugby. Always flitting between extremes . Schalk in the "flyhalf position" is a problem, Steph doing exactly the same thing makes him the best Bok of all time. Hilarious. 

Sure it was the same three who picked the Foxsport Team of the tournament.  They are also the same three who picked the Planet Rugby team of the tournament, as well as the News 24 team.

Misfit does not know that the three picks only the Rugby365 players of the week and in the end in the season best players.   

I feel very sorry for Herr Petze. He has made quite the quarry for himself. 

1. Wrong about Morne's kicking percentages
   
2. Wrong about Meyer's tactics
3. Wrong about how Meyer used his forwards
4. Wrong about Frans' defence
5. Wrong about Frans on attack 
6. Wrong about tactical kicks
7. Wrong about payer appearances in games

I may have been wrong at 1 - I am still having to check it  out factually - but the other 6 are AO lunacy and proven  that I was 100% right,  

No   -    you were wrong in claiming that the three journalists select the Team of the Week selections as claimed by YOU - not me.   Don't try and ran for cover on a wild claim made by you yourself - you changed your posting to limit it to the Rugby 365  posting and now implied that it was I who wrote the BS you started.

I would not have commented on it - if you did not make the claim about the three journalists.    As per normal the cheat and liar responded to the claims he made after changing the BS.

Sure his pet hate Du Toit must be mentioned.   Rest assured you are totally  deluded about that player.   Time to call up the other two habitual liars to assist you.