Who should be the Bok 10?

Well Whiteley is useless as a test 8th man....Combrink is useless as a test wing.....Mostert is useless as a test lock. But fans are comfortable picking those chaps on the basis of new Super Rugby evidence. Why should Jantjies be different. Not one of the Lions showed sustained test performance last year. . So what's the excuse. Two things....Coetzee never coached ball in hand rugby and secondly too many of the non Lions players were not equipped to play the Lions game. We know Coetzee is going to be back, so if we choose the 'best player in each position' what changes from last year? . We can go the conventional route...probably will go that route ultimately. But the alternative to ponder is whether we wont do better this year using the Lions as our core, trying to preserve their style of play and combinations as much as possible. . Not a conventional decision but we are so lost that it strikes me the results will be better this way.....and if we do that, like it or not Jantjies is one of the players who defines the Lions' style.

 
First of all, Mozart ... we never came close to selecting the best players in each position last season ... nor the season before ... nore the season before that.

I'm surprised you don't know that.

It would be a wonderful step up to have our best players fielded... and to answer your question ... that would be a big change from last year and the years before that.

How many of the Lions would make that special list?

We have Marx who is undoubtedly the best 2 in the country and therefore a must.

We have a few fine props in Dreyer, Smith and Redelinghuys that could easily contend with and for that matter pip the Kitshoffs, Beasts, Adriaanses and the Malherbes of the country ... they are however not a must select as we have Du Toit and Marais who are also fine prospects. We all saw how badly Trevor was man-handled last night and he was a regular in the Bok camp. Our best?????? I think not.

We have a workhorse second to none in Mostert. Is he our best though. I believe he should be in the mix but not as a starting lock. Erasmus has another season or two to go before he matures into a fine prospect ... so that leaves us with 1 possible but not vital prospect from the second row. 

Our back row has a bit of class in Kriel and Whiteley. Both of them are a must in the Bok mix. There aren't any better in the country. Du Preez and Cloete should also be in the mix.

We do not have a half pairing that deserves to even be mentioned. Not even Faff De Klerk.

Jantjies does not define the Lions style of play. He is merely a part of the game plan. Replacing him changes nothing. The coach decided how he wanted the team to play ... with or without Jantjies.  

We have Vorster and Janse van Rensburg in the mid field that cannot be matched by any in the country and therefore vital to the cause.

Other than that ... maybe a Combrink, but he's up against some fine competition out wide and so therefore not a definite must.

According to my calculations that makes a mere 5 Lions players that are musts in the Bok mix.

In other words 10 of the 15 starting players will come from the other franchises and then we still have the bench to consider.   

"Coetzee never coached ball in hand rugby and secondly too many of the non Lions players were not equipped to play the Lions game"

Therein lies your answer. Coetzee isn't capable of coaching running rugby. Not at Super Rugby level and most definitely not at test level ... so my question remains ... why adopt the Lions model when it's beyond him ... and besides that ... when there are so few Lions players in the mix?

Forget about adopting the Lions model of play. It's not the key ... getting rid of "Toetie" is.

 we never came close to selecting the best players in each position last season ...
Ja shampies, they didn't pick your star flyhalf, Marintz Boshoff. Things would have been so much better.
It's Coetzee's fault.

 
Glad to see you've memorised the name.

It took you awhile ... but I guess repeating it to yourself over and over and over again made it stick in the end.

Congrat s.

 

 Tell me, how on Earth did you come up with that pick? Seriously now, how dare you?
Not even clueless Coetzee would....and here you are knocking the man on a daily basis.
Seems like he knows more about the game than you.

 
You wouldn't understand.

Rugby has never been a strength of yours. The simplest of concepts elude you.

Selecting Willie at 10 says it all.

 You wouldn't understand.
Really??...Shame...clearly the clueless Coetzee knows more than you....that's what I understand, Dope.
Live with it!

 
Let me guess ... the missus had a "headache" again last night, right?

Probably tired of that greased up comb-over coming near.

Oh well ... guess it's back to loosening up the wrist again.

 Let me guess ... the missus had a "headache" again last night, right
Oh that line?...pssssttt it's stale, boring and predictable.....you're entitled to a bit of wit you know. There's nothing worse than a Bore. 
But tell me.....have you dumped Boshoff and picked up on Kolbe?

 The Lions game plan is the only only one that has been successful against Kiwi opposition in recent years. That's unfortunately the way it is. 
The best possible solution for the Boks is to put the game plan ahead of individual players pick players accordingly. 
That's not what will happen though. 
Expect another year of excuses and retrospect. 

But I'm afraid the game plan is defined by the players....just watching the Rebels match, so many smart ball carrying moves by the Lions tight five. The forwards from our other teams just don't have the same software. .. If you want to play this pattern the majority of our starting team have to be Lions. They won't beat the All Blcks, but that option isn't currently attainable.

 There's only ever going to be one outcome playing the AB's at their own game. The Boks would have to be a lot smarter, our go forward would have to be a solid half back pairing, a flyhalf who runs the ball backed with a smart boot. Just to take them on at their own game would be a total waste.

We actually only have 3 choices: . 1 Find a power team and go back to striong defence and set plays. . 2 Revamp our teams to play like NZ from the bottom up....and live with 5 years of performances like the Bools, Cheetahs and Stormers this last weekend. . 3 Accept by some quirk of fate the Lions have got the model and build around that. . I don't think 2 is going to be acceptable.

 Wipe 2 and 3 and go with solid set plays. Trouble is that the majority of Boks in all fairness would have to come from the Lions minus Jantjies meaning (1) would go against their grain.

 There is no number 1 option - returning to set piece and defense only is a thing of the past - no top team plays like that anymore.   There needs to be a mix - but the worst thing is what aimless kicking during games produces handover of possession - unfortunately it is the common element in such kicking.
The idea to play a ball in hand game is sounder - but not the only answer.  Strategic and relief kicking is essential - but then it must be accurate and effective. 
There is no real option but to start with new and proper team building and the results would not be immediate - there will e serious deficiencies to be addressed and those will not become clear over the next two years.
And Coetzee is not the coach who will be successful in doing that - he is useless as a coach and nothing will turn him around.   It would also help if we could have merit selection and not race-based selections.                 

We are going through a really desperate stage with respect to the Springbok rugby.
All of us have strong opinions on who, where and why so and so must be selected in this position or that position. But in the end, we are not united in our selections or results on the field.
Now considering that we are blessed with a few guys on this site who know and understand the game and yet they cannot collectively select a team that we feel or think can take on the top test teams is a major concern.
Just how many players have been selected as Springboks since 2007 WC and played one or two tests and then disappeared from the scene never to be heard of at test level again?
Most are one or two test wonders.
I often wonder just how many Springboks have been named since 2007 compared to prior years and what the results from those selections show. CM you are the stats guy perhaps you could provide that info.
Now I am not claiming that there are no players of test standard in SA because there are, but the real issue without a doubt and major contributing factor to the demise of Springbok rugby is the ANC and SARU's transformation policy.
We all know it and/or think it but to be PC we gloss over this issue to avoid being labeled a racist.
Now I have never read any post that falls in that area regarding Springbok rugby and from what I understand most if not all supporters will back a team consisting of 15 black players if and only if they are selected on merit.
Just how many top potential test players have moved overseas to continue their careers because they are unable to represent their country.  
So in closing my point is that until such time as merit selection is the criteria we will not and cannot ever field a team to beat NZ.

No use blaming coaches or players it is all political, unfortunately.
To witness everything going south is very disturbing to me and yet appears acceptable to some.

 @AJ An interesting side note.
Have you noticed a pattern in the positions black players usually play in SA rugby teams?
Normally the front row, wing or full back. Why is that? Genetics. Blacks in South Africa are just smaller than their white counterparts. 
Go further north to the DRC, Ghana etc and then you find the genes that bring about the likes of big black athletes. Simple...the average height of a Nigerian vs the average height of a Zulu. How many Jewish guys do we see doing well in the NBA...haha not many.
Presently in SA there are a good few black players that don't originate from within our borders playing SR. Beast, Ulengo, Rhule, the new Lions winger. Put those guys next to black players originally from SA and the difference in size is immediately noticeable. 
The politicians are flogging a dead horse. Jews aren't tall enough for basketball and South African black guys are generally too small for rugby.

 In the meantime there are some astute rugby followers on here who will digress by saying that our rugby has declined and that there isn't a single white player in any position who measures up to the Boks of the past, neither is there any white player who is the equal of an All Black.
But yeah, go ahead and flog the race card, it creates a nice camouflage for ignorance.

 There needs to be a mix...
Mike, we're saying exactly the same thing.....if you want, base our platform on a Lions game but add some substance. As I've previously said, our halfback pairing might well be the key to unlocking the Bok mojo and for the role of flyhalf I suggest that chappie from da Kings.

 Denny I don't know I'd that was directed at me or not.
All I'm saying is that genetics has a part to play in sports where size matters.

 Most definitely not directed at you, mate.....as a matter of fact I more than likely agree with you. Just bye the bye my own thoughts are that it probably goes just a little further than genetics, there's also the gees for the game alongside of genetics.
My repost is directed at the ignorant who not unlike the ANC base everything on race, those like AJ who continue to ignore the fact that our rugby has declined and has been declining for decades .....and yes race based selections is part of the problem but not all of the problem.

Agreed..... but I never claimed it was the only issue facing SA rugby.
But u have to concede that many a young white player with potential has left to ply his trade overseas simply due to the fact that he would not be selected due to his skin color.
This has resulted in players taking the field as a Springbok when we all understand that some players are not up to test rugby standard.
Don't get me wrong, what I am suggesting is that we are then fielding a weaker team through no fault of any of the players selected but due to political interference.
Imagine being a player selected under this directive for a test and all the media are up in arms about him being selected, it must be disheartening, demoralizing and it has to have some influence on his game.
It is unfair to the player, the spectators and to any sport and should be outlawed by all sport governing boards.
I was dismayed, embarrassed as a South African when President Voster pulled a Basil D ban and was very vocal at the time. Needless to say, I had endless threatening phone calls and suffered business wise as a result of my objection to the banning.
But it was wrong then and it is wrong now.

There aren't that many 'better' white players out there, simply denied by race. But the perception that race is a tie breaker, that there is a hard quota for the next WC has to be a factor. It would be better for everybody concerned if all this racial pressure was stopped. Best I can tell the country is very enthusiastic about deserving new African players. That lad Nkosi who looks pretty good, quick and strong, was certainly well received yesterday....just as one example. And if a player isn't a good candidate no amount of political interference will change that.

 There is a lot of further games needed before an objective assessment can be made.   There is a lot of other players who were one-match miracles and peter out later on - eg Tambwe, Ulengo, etc.   I hope Nkosi develops further and will certainly support his selection in future if he does.   In the meantime I think he is off to the Under20 WC I believe.   

 Nkosi is from Jeppe Boy's. IE my sworn enemy for life...just like James Dalton :)

 
There was an article on Nkosi recently quoted on this site and I hope the guy proves that he is top class.   Need some more game time to ensure that he is making the grade.

 Now back to the flyhalf issue.   First of all I think CC - with whom I differ from time-to time -  made a very good evaluation of the situation as to selection of Lions players doing so without prejudice like other members are inclined to be.
I have serious reservations about Jantjies at flyhalf.   He played in the 2011 Under 20WC and was good enough to draw attention.   He then went to the Lions in a year when he showed some inadequacies but was more notorious in allegations against Mitchell made essentially by Strauss and himself in a letter signed by al players.   When a hearing on this issue was held subsequently the only players who provided evidence was in fact Strauss and Jantjies - the rest of the players declined to become involved.
However, it was from a player perspective a problem in the two tests.   After continuous failures by Morne Steyn in 2012 - Goosen replaced him in the test side with Jantjies on the bench.   Jantjies had very little playing time in the home test against the Aussies  - he came on with about 5 minutes to play.   However, in the subsequent game against the AB's Goosen was injured early and Jantjies came on.   What was notorious in that case was that Jantjies lost the plot early and in the whole of the second half the scrummie rarely passed the ball to him.    The result was that Meyer did not select Jantjies for the res t of his career as Springbok coach.   Initially in 2013 Meyer used Morne Steyn and when the latter failed twice in 2014 he went for Pollard nd Lambie at flyhalf.        
In 2013 the Lions was out of Super Rugby and Strauss went off to Scotland and Jantjies to the Stormers.   His season with the Stormers could best be regarded as a disaster and they could not get rid of him quickly enough - his contract was supposed to end after the completion of the CC - but he was released early.  Most people blamed Coetzee for the disaster - but Jantjies showed very little to ensure that he was not the poor apple.   Fact is he went back to the Lions.
In 2014 the Lions had a vastly better performance record than they had in 2012 in Super Rugby and the end result was that he was selected on the bench for the two local tests against the Aussies and the AB's.   Jantjies came to the fore again as a key in the developing game plan of Ackerman and in general his performances were good - with rare lapses n both 2014 and 2015.
However, he was selected by Coetzee for test matches again in 2016 after the injury to Lambie.   In all tests played  he was really not up to standard and in the end Coetzee went back to Morne Steyn - who flopped badly once again.  
The above makes me wonder whether Jantjies has the temperament to play test rugby and whether he has the ability to move up the level from Super Rugby to test rugby.  Coetzee had a bad experience with him in Super Rugby in 2013 and in tests last year so he may hesitate about selecting him this year.   We will have to wait and see what happens - but I am still not convinced he is the answer at flyhalf for the Boks.           

 CC
Mozart is severely critical of your support of Boshoff at flyhalf - but I am not sure he is correct.   In the one  Super Rugby game where he replaced Jantjies in 2016 - the Lions put up a vastly superior performance - especially iro of backline performance than was even the case with Jantjies.   I am not sure - but I think it was the game in the play-offs against either the Highlanders or the Crusaders.  

 
Well, Mike ... I liked Boshoff then and I like him still. More so than Jantjies anyway.

He is a talented youngster that needed to be taken under wing and guided ... especially regarding his self confidence. At times he showed a lot of BMT ... othet times you could see he had no self belief. A mixed bag of conflicting emotions.

Sadly he's fallen out of favour now. I would have him back in Jantjies spot without a second thought.

Never ever denied that SA rugby has declined over the years.
Care to provide evidence and clarify!
 

Mike, again I'd like you to name Boks from 2016 who did not "flop" as badly or worse than Jantjies did. They are rare.
2016 was only a barometer of the coach and SARU as far as I am concerned. 
I can pick players from the most recent Bok team that you selected who did consistently worse than Jantjies did. De Allende as an example, who has NEVER been good in a Bok Jersey. He had one good/decent game prior to getting injured this year in SR...The same platform where Jantjies has been our best 10 yet again, all season. Yet you have reservations about Jantjie and not De Allende. 
Jantjies has been good for three years on the trot in SR now. No other SA 10s have. If you don't have small match temperament you don't have big match temperament. The guy has 11 Bok caps. How many does Lambie have?
Care to explain?

 Tend to agree Plum. Not a fan of Jantjies myself, but he is the only consistent 10 in SA ATM. We have to start him with another 10 on the bench...and I hope Lambie is not that 10. Pat just can't make the step up at 10...close but no cigar...time after time.

"Pat just can't make the step up at 10...close but no cigar...time after time."
What utter tripe! What are you basing this on, Draad? A combination of bias, prejudice and ignorance?
Pat Lambie has his faults but he's made more of a step up at #10 for the Springboks than Elton Jantjies ever has. Lambie at least has more wins than losses as the starting Springbok flyhalf. Elton can't say the same.
Neither are perfect but to make out there's this enormous chasm between them at international level is just plain ignorant (or hopelessly biased). If anything the stats favour Lambie. Those are the facts . . . I can't speak for the opinions.

Agreed I hope it's not Lambie....time after time he has come back after injuries and been fast tracked into the Sharks or Boks. But after one or two average games, he starts to decline......and then he gets injured. It's not a player's fault if he gets hurt, but that doesn't make it easier for the team. So it's a choice between mediocrity and nothing.....neither of which is going to help the cause. I hope our rugby coaches can at least accept that obvious truth.

Come on Rooi, you know that's unfair. Jantjies has had the bulk of his test caps under Coetzee. And not a single person on this board rates him as a coach. Personally I think Rob Du Preez has the metal, or will attain it sooner rather than later,  but if the Boks are going for Lions combinations they have to start with Jantjies. At least against France.
We don't have the benefit of seeing how other 10s perform within the Lion's setup. The service their forwards provide and the lines their backs run do make the 10s job much easier. So were there another 10 there he might also dominate. My guess is that Goosen, Du Preez, Lambie and Pollard would all look good playing in this Lions team. Unfortunately we can't go on evidence which we don't have.
Look, sure I'm punting most of the Lions players but I have zero bias. Were the Sharks, Stormers or Bulls doing what the Lions have for the last three years then I'd be punting them. Were the Boks more successful then I'd be looking more at individual players. Unfortunately none of that is the case. 
It sucks when our national coach is so bad that he can't build a unit that is better than what is in reality a team of mainly second rate players that have been coached to be greater than the sum of their parts. It's circumstance but it is what it is.
I realize just how repetitive I begin to sound. Oh well ;)

 Rooi, neither Jantjies nor Pat has really made FH their own for the boks. IMO, both are adequate place holders until the real 10 steps forward...so only one should be in the match 23 this year, in order for us to have another untried hopefull on the bench. Seeing that Lambie has hardly played this season, Jantjies should be the one for now. I would much rather have Jantjies with Cronje/Du Preez on the bench for the French tests, than bot J & L. We need to move on from these 2 FH's...I would not be against Lambie at FB, but IMO his ship has sailed as Bok 10.

A combination of individuals of utility players...that can can play at fullback and new flair experimental players that can be switched...solid and calm Lambie... and new, Coetzee and Bosch...both Patrick and Curwin can also do a blue clip job in 15 as well and Du Preez and Zellinga as stand byes for 10.
Goosen and F Steyn will send us back to our past  problems...sadly they are out of step now and spoilt their chances like Ruan Pienaar who should never have been a 9 but 10 (always a player out of position...when he was young showed huge promise as a flyhalf...Jake White compared him with Wallaby Larkins)... and boring Morne Steyn who were our past conservative mindset...  coaches bugger ups... never had clever imaginative approach.

Elton is a talented player and does a good job in franchise rugby but falls apart in the big pressurised arena...got unbalanced confidence issues.

Denny, I have stated repeatedly that the standard and skill of SA rugby has decreased dramatically since the WC in 1995.
There has been an exodus of potential international sportsmen/women over that period as well. Many have chosen to move for personal reasons and others to ply their trade for reasons other than financial.
As I stated earlier due to the transformation policy of the SA government many players have been selected who are not international test standard players. It is not the fault of the player and I have also stated that I sympathize with these guys who are forced into this situation.
I have never claimed that the "racial" transformation policy is the only factor for this decline in performance but it sure has not assisted the game, the standard or the players.
Some great players of color who have been selected and performed admirably and have been cheered on by all Springbok supporters. 
But my point is that selection should be merit selection, not race selection.
Now if you consider that an ignorant race position that I have all I can say to you is SHAME.
Grow up, lighten up and make an effort to either act civilly and don't go out of your way to piss most folks off.
If you are so anti everybody go and find a forum that caters just for guys like you.
But in closing, I wish to say try the first option as we enjoy some of your postings and appreciate your positive input, especially on cricket.
Have a great day.

 Arthur....when exactly did you become the royal spokesperson for the forum? My guess is that you're self appointed but I stand to be corrected.
Then show me the evidence for the below.....
Denny, I have stated repeatedly that the standard and skill of SA rugby has decreased dramatically since the WC in 1995.
A narrative and a timeline will do....tx.

 
That is a very good point, Mozart.

In the end ... what would be best for the team?

Can we afford to have a different 10 every 2nd or 3rd match ... for whatever reason ... injury or bad form?

Will this constant change benefit the team? No ... most definitely not. How can it? We need consistency.

Can we depend on Lambie? For how long? He is injury prone. We all know that. He spends more time on the sidelines than he does on the pitch. I rate him as our best 10 currently and if he proved his fitness, would not hesitate to give him the Bok 10 jersey ... but right now there's a very big "IF" surrounding him. I have no confidence in his ability to finish a match.

Perhaps it's best he be left to play SR and CC. He should rather settle back in at a lower level of play and not rushed in where the hits are harder and the game is at a much higher intensity.

This inconsistency isn't doing him or SA rugby any good. Besides that ... how much self confidence does he have at the moment. I can't imagine much.

That leaves us with a selection of inexperienced players to select from ... some of which are outright chumps.

We know Jantjies cracks under pressure. Do we bring him back for another stint at10?

Who is the best 10 in the country (excluding Lambie)? ... is it Jantjies? If it is then he should be slotted in and left ... and G od help us all.