Who needs Plum?

The Sharks performance at Loftus yesterday against a fully amped Bools team, was the best of their season. If Lambie had kicked competently they would have won....if Butch hadn't gone nuts they might still have won.....and if Riaan Viljoen had knocked over a pretty simple kick, they would have won, with 14 men on the park. Pretty special for a team that is in transition. - But whoever was pulling the strings made some smart moves. Lambie has been lost for months, his confidence shot. Moving him to centre allowed him to play a bit more freely. And Butch added necessary gravitas, good and bad, at 10. Still the backs looked more purposeful. - Along with these smart selection moves, we saw one of the best tactical innovations of the year, with Daniel lifted sky high at the front of the lineout. Rather than contest the Bools maul close in, by not jumping, the Sharks totally disrupted their lineout. It was clever and brave....convention discarded for inspiration. - I repeat, who needs Plum?

I think the Sharks were becoming stagnant under Plumbtree and this new coaching staff made a difference, Sharks have fire again.  Next week they play my team and I know it is going to be difficult for usbut we will give it all.  Mr Mozart you know what they say about IF, nê!

Now if you load your rifle right
And if you fix your bayonet so
And if you kill that man, my friend,
The one we call the foe,
And if you do it often, lad,
And if you do it right
You'll be a hero overnight
You'll save your country from her plight
Remember God is always right
If you survive to see the sight
A friend now greeting foe...

No you won't believe in If anymore
If's an illusion
If's an illusion
No you won't believe in If anymore
If is for children
If is for children
Building daydreams

Mozart The damage Francois Steyn did to the team was the cause of most of their problems. Plumtree did have some problems - but to blame him for not playing James is luidicrous. James was out injured and only came back two weeks ago. Why are you always barking up the wrong tree - Mozart? And Daniel himself said loud and clear - they are playing to their utmost because they want to honour Plumtree. These supposition without fact is a really a poor show on your part. You came out with a number of issues against Plumtree that was devoid of any basis - and now this one. Plumtree had his faults - but none of your rubbish on the issue is true.

 Good point Mats....the game is in the books. But as a non Sharks guy I can feel their pain, battling back to a winning kick with 14 men, only to have Viljoen go deer in the headlights.

 

Oom 34 you really have no clue. 

Mozart Clueless you normally are - do you deny that James was injured and could not be played earlier? You implied that Plumtree should replace Lambie with James - but James was injured and could not play. I have reason to say Plumtree should b replaced for professional purposes - but the reasons you invented for the purpose is really dunce material. Another clanger - play an injured player. Mozart I really am surprised at you - getting deeper in the Sea of Rugby Ignorance all the time.

Mozart I often enough make the mistake of trying to arrive at a logical conclusion and expect something logical from your postings. However, logic in rugby is unfortunately not your strong suit. You put in a heading and then go on to discuss the improvement in Lambie's performance and the improved showing because Lambie was moved to center and James brought in at flyhalf implying that if James was brought in earlier by Plumtree it would have made a difference - as if Plumtree was too stupid to realize that as solutions to the problems of the Sharks. The illogical construction of events to link the improvement to the departure of Plumtree is really the key issue here. First of all prior to Meyer getting hold of Lambie - he was much more dynamic at fly half last year than he ever was this year. Can you recall Meyer's remarks about - * Lambie not having a good enough kicking game and therefore not using him at flyhalf last year - even though he was on the bench; * Meyer said he is satisfied now that his kicking game at flyhalf has improved and that he is selecting him at flyhalf for the EOYT; and * the obvious strict game plan Lambie had to play accordingly - leading to the Meyer remarks that Lambie has been given permission to play the game differently and instinctively in the Twickenham test. The damage was done then. Lambie became a Morne Steyn clone this year and that was not very good conducive to improved performances. Like Morne last year - Lambie was given Francois Steyn to play at inside center. That killed the Springbok backline last year and it did the same to the Sharks backline this year. James played at inside center for the Lions last year and signed up with the Sharks this year after Steyn had to be removed and it would have been logical to use him there this year as well - should he have been available - but he was injured and not available. The other issue about Daniel's usage in line outs was also an issue. Daniel was earlier in the season quite frequently used to catch line out balls and you are free to look up his stats in the relevant regard - it was not a stroke of genius of the new coaches as you implied. Problem is that your whole campaign against Plumtree is based on misconception and grasping at straws. You lose out on the fact that the self same assistant coaches are still used by the Sharks and all the implied new measures was developed because Plumtree is not there anymore - ignore Daniel's own comment on the issue of Plumtree. I think that if you base the dismissal on real grounds - like the factions that developed in the team this year and was not properly addressed by Plumtree and the poor performances of the team this year - yes there were grounds for dismissal. However, to develop misguided theories and unproven issues like you did in the case of dismissal is really laughable. My advice to you is bear in mind the logic of your heading and the rest of your writings - and what they really imply in practice and not query something because people reach a logical conclusion on what you imply in your postings. Just one thing - Daniel is a relevantly small player that can easily be lifted very high by a supporting player to take balls in line-outs - and it was done in the past as well - while Alberts ineffectuality to do anything is due to his gross over-weight which nullifies his usage in line-out play. No two players will be able to support Alberts in line out jumping - so he is not worth anything in that component of the game. Please also bear in mind James past history - how often was he penalized and even sent off previously for illegal tackles while playing for the Springboks? For too often for my liking and his latest kamikaze tackle is nothing new - it happened far too frequently previously

My take on the Plum issue is the following. He was a good coach that did well enough at the Sharks, but as someone else here has pointed out, the team was maybe looking a little stagnant under him. I still feel injuries played a big part in this years poor showing in Super Rugby. Having said all that, I think the way his situation was handled by John Smit was unfair. At the time when Plum got the boot I think it was fair to say the Sharks Super Rugby season was already a lost cause, so there was nothing to gain by getting rid of Plum. Smit should have let him finish out the season and then sent him on his way. Would have made zero difference to anything. Smit now comes across as a dictator-like CEO, that was just felxing his muscles without taking anyone else into account.