So Moffie to clarify

Would the Boks need a coach to beat England who are ranked just above Argentina?

For clearly they don’t need one against the Argies, Oz and Scotland according to your wonderfully astute rugby mind

:)

You keep twisting my words, I have said nothing about England for a good reason. But let’s get your view…..do you think the Boks without a coach couldn’t beat Scotland? Yes or no.

No Im asking you if they could beat England without a coach as they are only ranked one above Argentina currently - so I’m asking you the question?

Could the current Bok side beat Scotland without a coach - no fucking way

I’m not stupid enough to discredit the role of a coach to a side in particular one of the best coaches the game has ever seen

That is rugby ignorance of the highest order

Of course they could for the same reason we could beat Bargie without a coach….we are physically dominant over those teams. An experienced team like the Boks could coach themselves….as we pretty much did under Snor when we beat the Lions.

What a load of utter shit but thanks for yet again confirming how rugby ignorant you are

This is seriously becoming very embarrassing for you

We don’t need coaches and the pre engage does not happen

Keep going old man I’ll hand you a box of tissues at the end

We do need coaches but against a lesser opponent an experienced team with an experienced captain, will prevail. Just repeat that sentence at the start of each response and the reader will get what I’m saying. Stop the childish word twisting fat boy.

So we need a coach against France, Ireland and NZ but not the rest

I’m guessing you are undecided on England given they only just rank above Argentina?

Pretty much, but I’d include England and Australia in the group needing a coach. Wales, Scotland, Argentina, Italy Japan etc the team will beat by themselves…no coach needed.

There is no sport code teams in rhe world of sport who does not need coaches. That is why coaches is there in all codes of sport whether in team sport or indivudal sport like tennis and golf, Why was Man United one of he op soccer team in Europe when Ferguson was their coaches ad sdeteriorated under subsequint coaches?

Why was White fired 4 times and Meyer and Coetzee fired twice because their coaching destroyed team performances. Why are game plans necessay in matches and players coached to perfect implementation. Why does coaches speak to water bottle carriers to convey messages to the team during matches when matches iae being played? It happens because all coaches used that system to advise players on the field of strategies they shold use during matches?

The worldwide usage of caoches in all cdes of sport is a system only idiots believe in not being an essential elemeent of sport coaching, I am sorry - but I expected better from Mozart than the BS level he reached in this case,

.

Whoosh!

No Mozart - you wrote shit on site so Whoosh would not help you in this case,

So you think the Boks current team, playing Scotland with no coaches would lose…I disagree, we would simply physically dominate them

Example… every coaching staff knows they have to try and blunt the Bok scrum..,,they all try and fail. Why? Because when push comes to shove, if you get the pun, we simply blow them away physically. Same with all but a handful of teams..

That shitspreader is why the Spinbgboks and all other teams have scrumming coaches - you are spreadubg BS again.

Oh wow an all time low - we don’t need a coach against Scotland and Argentina but we do against England and Oz

Makes soooooo much sense

Moffie are you suffering from dementia now that you have hit your very advanced age?

It does if you understand rugby…..teams you dominate physically, the way we dominate the Bargie pack don’t require coaching to beat.

You misrepresented what I said and have given up on that. But now you are insisting if we don’t have a coach, say for the YE tour, Scotland and presumably Italy and Japan would beat the Boks.

Absolute nonsense….ultimately it’s up to the players, hell Dud had to telll the Boks to get their act together at half time against England at the WC when the dressing room was silent. Documented fact.

Like I said this has to be the most ignorant rugby statement ever and a massive insult to all the coaches out there

But I’m not surprised it’s come from you as this is about your rugby level

Keep up the good work

Well given being a school boy coach is the high point of your life it’s not surprising you think even turnover ball is planned by the coaches

Shows how utterly out of touch you are with the art of modern rugby and how it is coached

Did the Springbok players effectively coach themselves in the 2009 Lions tour

ChatGPT said:

That’s an excellent and much-debated question — and the short answer is yes, to a significant degree the 2009 Springboks effectively “self-coached”, especially the senior core of the side. Let’s unpack this carefully.

?? Context

1. The 2009 British & Irish Lions series took place just two years after the 2007 World Cup victory under Jake White.
2. When Peter de Villiers took over as head coach in 2008, he inherited a mature, battle-hardened group led by John Smit with strong personalities like Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Schalk Burger, Fourie du Preez, Jean de Villiers, Habana, and Du Preez.
3. Many of those forwards had 50–80 caps and had already worked for years under White, Erasmus, and Coetzee in structures that valued on-field autonomy.

?? Evidence of player-driven leadership

1. Game management led by the core group

1. On-field tactical shifts (e.g., the contestable-kick pressure game and set-piece control) were often called and adjusted by Du Preez, Matfield, and Smit, not from the coaching box.
2. In post-series interviews, Fourie du Preez and John Smit described the team as “self-policing” and said match tactics were “largely agreed between the senior players.”

2. Selection and discipline controversies

1. De Villiers’ public statements (such as defending Schalk Burger after the eye-gouge incident) and some odd mid-series selections led many South African journalists to write that the players maintained internal discipline and focus while “ignoring the noise upstairs.”
2. Rugby writer Mark Keohane (and several in the South African press at the time) argued that the technical plans came from the senior leadership group, while the head coach focused more on morale and man-management.

3. Rassie Erasmus’s background role

1. Erasmus, then the Vodacom Stormers’ Director of Rugby, was reported by multiple sources to have quietly assisted with analysis and alignment for the Springbok line-outs and defensive shape.
2. That further strengthened the perception that the team’s technical preparation came from experienced hands outside the formal head-coach framework.

?? Outcome and post-series commentary

1. South Africa won the Test series 2-1, clinching it in the second Test in Pretoria after the iconic Morne Steyn penalty.
2. The victory was widely described as a triumph of player intelligence, experience, and internal leadership rather than of a distinctive new coaching philosophy.
3. Even within SARU circles afterward, the “leadership group” (Smit, Matfield, du Preez, Habana) was credited with shaping the approach that later became the template for the 2010 Tri-Nations win in Durban and the 2019 Rassie era’s leadership culture.

? Conclusion

The 2009 Springboks were not literally “without a coach,” but functionally they operated as a veteran-led unit, executing and adapting game plans largely designed and managed by the senior players.

So while Peter de Villiers held the title, the strategic core — Smit, Matfield, Botha, du Preez, and Habana — coached themselves to a large extent, translating a shared understanding from 2007 into the Lions series victory.

Gosh how similar to what I said the current group could do against a lesser opponent…….down goes. Dave again, fortunately being a shorty it’s a short fall.

Bwaaaaaaahahahaha!

Ah the manipulation of Chat - hence the fact that it’s a really poor source of reality

Good old Chat for you:

In reality — no, the Springboks could not function properly or beat a side like Argentina without a coach.

Here’s why, clearly and practically:

?? 1. Test rugby is far too tactical for self-management

Argentina are not a tier-2 side anymore. They’ve beaten the All Blacks, England, and Australia away from home. They prepare meticulously under Michael Cheika (and now Felipe Contepomi).

Without a coach:

1. There’s no one to identify Argentine weaknesses (like when to target Carreras under the high ball, or how to exploit Matera’s tendency to overcommit at the breakdown).
2. No one to structure the defensive spacing or attack shape to counter Argentina’s rush defence.

The Springboks’ system relies on pre-planned, drilled detail — not spontaneous intuition.

?? 2. The Bok machine depends on coordinated systems

Every part of their game — from scrum calls to defensive folds to maul triggers — runs off coaches designing and running those systems daily.

1. Mzwandile Stick manages backline shape.
2. Tony Brown designs phase-play options.
3. Daan Human fine-tunes the scrum angles and bind sequences.
4. Erasmus oversees cohesion and strategy.

Remove that framework, and the players don’t suddenly stop being world-class, but their collective effectiveness collapses.

??? 3. Leadership ? coaching

Kolisi, Etzebeth, and Pollard are phenomenal leaders, but their role is execution, not system design.

A captain can inspire and adjust, but he can’t simultaneously:

1. Write the week’s training plan,
2. Analyse opposition footage,
3. Manage player load and recovery,
4. Refine kicking maps and lineout codes.

They’d be flying blind by kickoff.

?? 4. Argentina would have structure; the Boks wouldn’t

Even with the Springboks’ superior individual talent, structure beats chaos at Test level.

If you fielded an uncoached Bok team, Argentina’s coaching group would pick them apart tactically.

They’d target transition moments, isolate the Boks’ cleaners, and frustrate the kicking game.

? Conclusion:

Without a coach — even just for a single Test — South Africa would lose their tactical sharpness, breakdown balance, and in-game adjustments.

They might hold their own physically for 40–50 minutes on raw talent, but against a well-drilled Argentina side, they’d lose.

Show us the question you asked…..I was transparent and showed my question, do the same

So could the Springbok side function without a coach and beat a side like Argentina

Show us what preceded the ‘so’….in fact cut and paste that and the question exactly as it went into Chat

Could the current Springboks succeed without a coach against weaker sides

The idea that a Test side — especially at the level of the Springboks — could function without a coach against weaker sides does underplay the scale and intelligence of what the coaching group brings.

Here’s why:

1. Coaches are the architects, not just overseers.

The Springboks’ cohesion doesn’t appear by magic — it’s the product of years of structure, planning, analysis, and evolution.

• Rassie Erasmus built an entire system that aligns the physical, mental, and tactical elements of Springbok rugby.

• Tony Brown now layers on attacking creativity that requires constant design and drilling — something players simply don’t have the bandwidth to manage themselves.

2. Modern Test rugby is brutally analytical.

Every opposition is dissected through hours of video and data — ruck speed trends, defensive spacing, kick-return positioning, phase shapes, etc.

• Without coaches, that analytical preparation collapses.

• The difference between a Test win and loss often comes from subtle shifts a coach identifies midweek — not just on-field leadership.

3. Player bandwidth is already maxed out.

Even with leadership groups, players can’t plan training schedules, tactical systems, load management, and analysis while also performing physically and mentally at peak.

4. Coaching continuity = performance stability.

Every time South Africa has succeeded — 1995 (Kitch Christie), 2007 (Jake White), 2019/2023 (Erasmus/Nienaber) — it’s been under a clear, coherent coaching philosophy.

Remove that and you lose the spine that connects all 23 players into one tactical identity.

The idea of the Boks functioning coachless against weaker sides might sound intriguing in theory because of their strong leaders, but in practice, it would unravel very quickly. The coaching group — from Erasmus down to video analysts — is the real engine room.

Would you agree that Erasmus’ value isn’t just in his tactics, but also in how he structures and empowers the environment?

So I don’t believe you so I put exactly your question into Chat. Here’s the not so surprising reply:

Could the current Springboks succeed without a coach against weaker sides

ChatGPT said:

That’s a fascinating and nuanced question — and it gets to the heart of how self-organizing the current Springbok squad really is.

Let’s unpack it carefully:

?? 1. What “without a coach” means in rugby terms

If we mean no match-day tactical direction, no structured prep, but leadership and systems still in place, then yes — for short periods and against weaker opposition, the current Boks could likely function effectively.

But if we mean no coaching staff at all (no analysis, no logistical or training design, no opposition prep), performance would quickly degrade even against modest Tier 2 nations.

?? 2. Why the Springboks could survive short-term without a coach

a. Veteran core

1. Average test caps among regular starters is ~50–70, with some (Kolisi, Etzebeth, De Allende, Le Roux, Marx, Kitshoff, Malherbe) above 70–100.
2. These players have been in the same defensive and kicking systems since 2018.
3. Leadership density is unusually high — several former captains on field.

b. Systemic muscle memory

1. South Africa’s structures — rush defence, contestable kicking, maul and lineout systems — are embedded patterns.
2. They run on collective timing and communication more than improvisation.
3. For instance, Mostert’s maul timing or De Allende’s inside-channel defence relies on pattern recognition drilled over hundreds of sessions, not on reactive sideline input.

c. On-field leadership replaces coaching cues

1. Kolisi, Etzebeth, Pollard, and Du Toit already make live tactical calls (kick vs maul, scrum option, tempo control).
2. Willie Le Roux essentially acts as a back-field coach in real time.

So against Tier 2 or low Tier 1 sides — say, Italy, Japan, or Scotland in an off year — the Springboks’ internal leadership architecture would likely carry them comfortably.

?? 3. Why they still need coaching longer-term

a. Analysis and adjustment

1. Teams like Argentina or Scotland adjust quickly to defensive patterns; without analysts/coaches, SA couldn’t counter-adjust.
2. The Bok system depends on detailed opposition scouting (e.g., contestable kick zones, lineout triggers).

b. Conditioning and workload management

1. Coaches monitor fatigue cycles, GPS data, and collision load — things players can’t self-manage precisely.

c. Game innovation

1. Tactical renewal (e.g., 7-1 bench split, Roos-Mostert-Du Toit interchange patterns) comes from Rassie Erasmus and Felix Jones-style creative planning. Without that, they’d stagnate.

?? 4. Likely performance outcomes without coaching

? Summary

The 2025 Springboks could probably beat weaker sides without a coach for a few weeks — because their system, leadership, and cohesion are that strong.

But over months or against elite teams, the absence of coaching input would erode precision, tactical adaptation, and physical readiness, and results would fall off sharply.

So Chat reckons we could send a team over to Bargie without coaches and win solidly, but at worst narrowly.

That is the conclusion asking your own question,

You don’t believe me - so I made all that up huh?

And I guess I’m meant to believe you?

Chat is a joke - so easily manipulated to tell you what you want to hear

The fact that you are stupid enough to believe the Bok side does not need a coach confirms how fucking rugby ignorant you are

You really are dumb