Willemse moved to 12....AwGoostus dropped

Mozart

Willemse played at 12 in the first Under 20WC and was very successful in that position.   He is replacing Dan Kriel who was never a good enough center anyway.

There are whispers that Erasmus will go for Schickerling at lock as well.   He may just be the one to come on Board if Mostert is out.  W e will have to see what happens when the squad is announced on Saturday. 

Schickerling would be a nice selection, all on board for that

Autgustus is 20, he's incredibly promising - already won player of the tournament with the Baby Boks and the JWC.

He's had a solid Currie Cup outing for WP - him missing the squad for more experienced players is no bad things, he's learning at a good pace, give him a few years and he'll be there.  

Mozart

Schalk at 20 was not the Player of the Under 21 WC tournament and did not score tries in every game he played in at the 2003 WC.     Augustus did both.

It is way to early to make comparisons of the nature you are doing.      

Quota players, quota players.

The NH has already churned more decent rugby players from similar populations than SA has and ever will.

SA is unneeded on the world scene, it brings nothing to the table, gold is gone in SA, that was the only reason to bear the abomination called SA rugby. It wont be missed.

I like him too. He will shine next year. I hope Dobson will coach the Stormers next year...surely must be better than Flekkie ????

Juan Smith, Vermuelen, Alberts are all not great loose forwards then?

I've seen some crazy things, but writing off a 20 year old cause they're not developed yet?

What point are you making? You yourself have now pointed out that two excellent loosies were late bloomers - which makes the fact that Augustus is 20 and already a JWC player of the tournament as well as a solid Currie Cup campaign all the more impressive.

What do you mean by 'young brigade', do you mean players who weren't good enough when they were young? Because you're arguing against yourself there, maybe they didn't start so young because they developed naturally over time - players do that, they don't need to be ready at 20, no one does.

Check my facts? Smith was 21 when he debuted for the Boks, he was older than Augustus is now, Augustus could debut when he's 22 or 23 - but are those 2 years that important?

'..it's apparent he isn't....combat ready' - again, he's 20 - he's not meant to be, if he was that would have been a bonus but why expect him to be ready now? If we're still having that conversation in a few years then it's a different story.

Moz, I agree with a lot on your views on rugby here but I think you're being necessarily harsh on a 20 year old who's already achieved more than most in his age group in rugby.

Most of these projects who need time don't delver. I can't think of many who have done so. Malherbe is playing better this year. Steph is playing better under Rassie, but he is still showing some of those old vulnerabilities.

South Africans are addicted to the quick fix or superficial flavour of the day. Like tweenie boy bands they come and go. Every year there is someone new.

It gets better. They demand results now, but insist the coach gives them time because they will come good. You just can't satisfy the plastics. When he it all goes wrong, they'll turn on the coach, but never concede their selections were wrong. Who'd want to be a Bok coach? You have to be out of your mind. 

What actually was always wrong was the age mania affecting people - thinking that because Louw is 33 year old he will always be better then younger players irrespective .  There are very few examples  now - under Meyer it was endless madness.  

"thinking that because Louw is 33 year old he will always be better then younger players irrespective." 

This is where you fall flat on your face, like a sack of spuds falling off farmer Kirkpatrick's wagon as he goes to market to be rid of you.

Who said Louw is better than younger players because he is 33? Do cite one post, from anyone. In fact, I extent the parameter of that challenge: Search the entire internet. You'll find nothing.

I said he needed a big game after the second Puma test, to dispel doubts. He wasn't good coming off the bench in his next two games. So, I said it'd be hard for him to get back into the team. Those were my exact words. He did have a very good game against New Zealand. Remember how I said I wasn't sure how he was going to fare? Remember how we discussed alternatives at 8, I mentioned Jean-Luc, who grafted against England.

So, where is my campaign to have him in the team? Where and when did I back Louw purely because he was 33? Utter nonsense and flagrant dishonesty. If anyone brought up age, it was you, not us. You won't accept he had even one good game this season because he is 33. Who was it who spoke of bias? You tried to pin at least 4 tries on him, entirely fabricating events. You even repeated the debunked lie!

How often it is we have to retrace old ground, again a and again. Just move on. Once beaten, always beaten. Reopening old wounds will only end in more tears.