Finding Bok numbers 16 to 30
20 Apr 2006
Keo, in his News 24 column, writes that Bulls coach Heyneke Meyer is 100% correct when he says South African rugby is in trouble, but Springbok rugby is still healthy.
Meyer, speaking to the Rapport newspaper, was reflecting on the Super 14 woes of South African teams and comparing the country’s leading 150 players to the New Zealand equivalent. That looks like a horror story if you are South African, but when it comes to Test rugby, only 15 can start against 15 and only 22 can get a shot at being part of that 15 on any given Test match day.
When Graham Henry finally settles on his 15, there is very little to scare Jake White’s best 15. The problem comes when White starts losing some of his best 15, whereas Henry’s complication comes when he starts losing some of his top 35.
That is the march New Zealand has stolen on its rivals in the build-up to the 2007 World Cup. South Africa, Australia, France and England all comfortably have 22 to 25 Test players. New Zealand now have 35.
White’s challenge this year is to grow his number from 22 to 30 and the only way he is going to achieve that is to give exposure to first and second tier players.
We know the All Blacks will use a squad of 39 to 40 players in their first five Tests and we can expect White to follow a similar path with the Boks. It is inevitable and it in no way cheapens Bok selection.
White’s consistency in selection is commendable but it can also be suicidal if he does not test the depth available to him.
My understanding is he will alternate and mix and match his squads in the Tests against Scotland and France, before settling on two squads for the extended Tri-Nations.
It won’t be a first and second team, but more a combination of one and two, with the odd match featuring the preferred World Cup run on XV.
If you want to feel sorry for yourself as an SA rugby supporter, then continue to follow the Cats and Stormers. If you want a bit of cheer, then start making your own selections about a Bok team.
Even in the Cats debacle against the Sharks, Bok utility back Jaque Fourie was the most impressive back on show. Already there is a Bok positive from the calamity Cats.
In the Cheetahs road show, the doom of defeat is a Bok victory for Os du Randt. The veteran front rower has played more Super 14 than anyone expected and been as good as ever.
The Sharks quartet of BJ Botha, John Smit, AJ Venter and Ruan Pienaar have been imposing, while there have been enough cameos from Schalk Burger, Jean de Villiers, Pedrie Wannenburg, Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha, Juan Smith, Fourie du Preez, Bryan Habana and Percy Montgomery to give every Bok supporter comfort.
Where you have reason to feel twitchy is if you go outside of the Bok match 22.
What can White offer up as an alternative to Monty? Is Johan Roets good enough? Is Brent Russell an option? What of Conrad Jantjes and the Sharks youngster JP Pietersen?
On the wings, Ashwin Willemse is gone, so we are back to Breyton Paulse and Habana. What follows? Fourie as a winger? The Ndungane twins?
The centre combination of De Villiers and Fourie is the best in this country and among the best in the world. If they aren’t there does Wayne Julies, De Wet Barry, Wynand Oliver and Marius Joubert give you the same sense of comfort?
Flyhalf is a problem. Jaco van der Westhuyzen, Andre Pretorius and Meyer Bosman are the three in possession. None is a Dan Carter or even a Luke McAlister or a Nick Evans.
Halfback is the one area where the Boks are strong, so too loose-forward, but with no Bakkies and Victor at lock are Albert van den Berg, Danie Rossouw, Ross Skeate, Johan Muller and Andries Bekker good enough to win us a Test against Scotland and France?
Botha, as a tighthead, has warmed the hearts of the selectors, but who is the go to man at loosehead now that Gurthro Steenkamp is also gone for the season?
And finally who takes over from Smittie as hooker? Do you entrust Gary Botha and do you continue to back Hanyani Shimange at the expense of Schalk Brits?
I know that Du Randt, (Bakkies Botha), Matfield, De Villiers, Fourie and possibly Habana would challenge for a place in Henry’s best All Black XV. That’s the good news. However, some players being spoken of as possible Bok contenders would struggle to make a New Zealand Super 14 team. That’s the bad news.
When 15 plays 15, the Boks will always have a chance, no matter who they play. The challenge this season is for numbers 16 to 30 to be as competitive.
146 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
20 Apr 2006, 13:11 pm
yeah Larkham and Latham solid as, brilliant player.
need more punch in that tight 5, not two lineout specialists.
20 Apr 2006, 13:11 pm
cab.NO10 for australia should rather be larkham,don’t get me wrong, mat rogers is awesome,but injuries are starting to creep in for him.
20 Apr 2006, 13:12 pm
ps. I think there’s only been cameos from current Boks.
Especially the lack of class shown in the midfield incumbents has scared me.
20 Apr 2006, 13:13 pm
SIGH…
Cab
Still on the ‘enforcer’ wagon I see.
20 Apr 2006, 13:13 pm
DavidSp,
yip probably didn’t help that it was in sydney, thought they could sneak it with everyone fit. what was the battle like upfront? anyone standout in the battle of the loosies?
20 Apr 2006, 13:14 pm
ps Tomcat
That Barnes youngster at the Reds is starting to show signs that he may be the one to follow in Bernie’s footsteps in two or so years. Can’t believe he’s just 20….
James Hilgendorf and Rogers are makeshift flyhalves to be blunt.
If you REALLY want an enforcer I suppose that Radike Samo monster at the Brumbies wouldn’t be a bad bet.
20 Apr 2006, 13:15 pm
davidsp.i think barrit might still lack abit of experience,but in time most definetly a challenger for de villiers.
20 Apr 2006, 13:15 pm
DavidS,
Oz is a perfect case in point. Best backline in the world, great flankers (not a huge elsome fan as a 6 tho), but tight 5 get demolished at test level. They more than anyone need a presecne at 4 and at 7.
20 Apr 2006, 13:16 pm
Cab
Funnily enough I thought Waugh and Smith cancelled each other out.
Kanaar was pretty good.
20 Apr 2006, 13:18 pm
sorry there 6 is our 7.
Smith is probably the best fetcher in the game apart from McCaw so he’s a defnite at 6 (their 7). Elsom is ok, but miss a wrecking-ball like WillyO at blindside, hence Palu and 8 is either mr jowles, Lyons, or the younger Tawake. (quite like John Roe, but such is the insipid nature of the tight 5, cant play him)
20 Apr 2006, 13:19 pm
Tomcat
But he was showing pure class this wekend against the Cats. He broke the line every time he took the ball up.
But then again he was doing that against the Reds too.
At one point he was leading the Fantasy League stats with successful tackles too.
20 Apr 2006, 13:23 pm
Samo was fantastic, but the aussies dont seem to like him. Seem to know alot about backline play, but would’nt swop their forward know-how for all the tea in china (fetchers excluded – Smith is bloody awesome).
20 Apr 2006, 13:23 pm
David
remember,these stats are not reflecting international games,which we all know are on a level of their own.
but maybe you right,perhaps it would be interesting to see how barrit performs on international level,who knows,maybe a spot in the tri-nations team,we shall wait and see.
20 Apr 2006, 13:23 pm
I am not convinced that we have a front line 3, 6,9SOUTH AFRICAN STYLE] 8, 10, 12 14.
20 Apr 2006, 13:27 pm
The one thing you have to give the poms, much as it irks me, is they have learnt to do the basics very well. Cant fault their pack, massive scummaging 3 in Julian White, enforcer 4 in Johnson (and now that dirty bugger Grewcock, Shaw in same vein) and physical ball carriers in Worsely, Daglo and Corrie.
Simple rugby, which has crushed us and the aussies, combine that pack with aussie backline skill and you’re cooking. Enter the kiwis.
20 Apr 2006, 13:27 pm
davids
what do you think of jp pieterson?
20 Apr 2006, 13:33 pm
Samo was injured for a season and had a sluggish preseason his own fault really.
i think you will find that the lineout was also a problem for us last year. Sharpe really struggled with getting clean ball. harrison was a big loss in that area
20 Apr 2006, 13:37 pm
biggest failing is OZ scrum and ruck/maul go-forward momentum. In short, need more physicality, all the skill in the world don’t mean a thing if you’re pushed off the ball.
20 Apr 2006, 13:43 pm
Come now Cab. How can you claim that South African sportsmen are shrewd. That’s UTTER NONSENSE. The ability of SA rugby players to read a game and change tactics is virtually nil. When the going get’s tough SA players look like BAMBI in car headlights.
A guy like Don Cameron is just frustrated and amazed. Even though he’s a Kiwi, he wants to see SA teams competing well(the old and respected enemy), but incredibly to him and other Kiwis, although possessing ample raw talent, SA teams perform dismally and play this RUBBISH, slow, old fashioned power type game with huge loose forwards. And year after year they persist, even though they keep losing. Very shrewd.
20 Apr 2006, 13:50 pm
P.s Cab I know you’re a knowledgable rugby man. Yet you and 90% of SA fans cannot see what is wrong with SA rugby. IT’s VERY OBVIOUS to Aussies Kiwis and even Poms.
The game SA coaches prefer is static. The ball is not moved around enough. The emphasis is on physical domination rather than scoring tries.
Come on man how can a nation like Aussie that pours much less effort and resources into rugby union show up the SA S14 teams so badly week after week. The Aussies play a dynamic, attacking game not this lumbering slow power rubbish.
20 Apr 2006, 13:52 pm
very shrewd Delek, some very cutting edge moves from the boks over the years.
Our players are simply being outplayed at the moment in the S14. Its like Tim Lane said, what can you do with XV buggers that won’t tackle.
JW has made the national side very competitive, certainly the most competitive team to play in NZ for the last 3 years. We have players like Jean de Villiers who have a tactical rugby brain, which is as good, if not better than anything on the international circuit.
As I say the current world champions have huge loose forwards, its still a simple game up front, the only SA S14 teams competing are those with powerful packs, the sharks and the bulls.
20 Apr 2006, 13:53 pm
Delek,
You can lead a horse to water.
20 Apr 2006, 14:01 pm
Delek (and Don Cameron), you are 100% correct.
CAB, you say that “our players are simply being outplayed at the moment”. bru, our boys have been outplayed for the last 6-7 years and perhaps even longer. we play stupid rugby, its as simple as that. you just have to take off the patriotic blinkers and you’ll see it. the kiwis and ozzies know it, some of us south africans know it, but the rest need to catch a wake up.
sure, our guys are as talented as the rest, but we have stupid conservative introspective coaches coaching a stupid outdated style of rugby and our s12/s14 teams pay the price.
20 Apr 2006, 14:07 pm
Cane you’re sensing my frustration. Man, I’d love to see the Boks do well, but most SA coaches and fans seem to be in a time-warp.
I played club rugby in SA, England and NZ in that order. I was amazed and delighted when I played in NZ. Although I played for a few different teams, the emphasis of every team was to move the ball quickly to the player in the best position to attack. So different to SA where the whole idea was just to power forward with the ball. The NZ approach is VASTLY superior and more enjoyable for players and spectators.
P.s Cab don’t forget that England had Neil Back at no.7, a rather speedy dude even in his old age.
20 Apr 2006, 14:10 pm
Delek,
fair points, but will disagree with the conventional wisdom from abroad, which seems to have sprung up from national stereotypes more than anything else. We not as narrow-minded as you think and are amazed with your modern fetcher play and the quick hands that seem to be a league influence. However, we have a different style and perhaps are smart enough (you might call it stubborn, but its effective) to realise to play to these strengths.
i would also suggest that the SA game, with its more physical forward-oriented game with 1-off runners SA, brings alot to the much-maligned candy-floss criticms of the S14 and is more in line with the NH style. In 2002, England came close beat the kiwis with 13 men on the field, in new Zealand, the reason, pack dominance.
Its a simple game and 90% of the time the team that wins up front, i.e. who dominates, is going to win. The aussies are exceptional at getting away with sub-standard packs such is the brilliance of their backline, but their best teams are based around powerful packs with tough buggers like Willy O, Richard Harry, and the like.
Why are the Bulls so difficult to beat at home, or england at twickers, one reason, their monstrous packs.
20 Apr 2006, 14:11 pm
Where is the BONES!!!!
20 Apr 2006, 14:13 pm
Sorry it’s late here. Bed is calling. Look forward to continuing the debate soon.
20 Apr 2006, 14:18 pm
cheers Delek,
McCaw is a superb player, close to one of the best of all-time, amazingly refined and modern player, massive difference to any team, but we simply do not have a player like McCaw.
We have Schalk Burger, what he lacks in refinement he makes up for in guts, workrate and physicality. Different styles. Its not stupid rugby and we fielded a pretty decent national team for the last 2 years. What would be stupid is to try and change to a playing strategy to a style that is counter-intuitive to our talents.
20 Apr 2006, 14:23 pm
time warp my ***, take the blinkers off yourself Davo.
20 Apr 2006, 14:25 pm
Bones, bones, bones, bones, bones, bones, bones, bones, bones, bones, bones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20 Apr 2006, 14:27 pm
StM,
if you read any of this, you’ve still got a **** team.
20 Apr 2006, 14:29 pm
Quin!!!
Where you been mate?!!!!
20 Apr 2006, 14:31 pm
I wouldn’t bag the Aussie locks. Sharpe, Vickerman, Chisholm, etc.. can hold their own against anyone.
They have no shortage of real quality loosies either. Smith’s a master. Lyons is a great No.8.
And their backs? Gregan, Larkham, Giteau, Mortlock, Tuqiri… As good or better than any team in the world.
Only two things missing – a front row and DEPTH.
20 Apr 2006, 14:31 pm
TAXI !
20 Apr 2006, 14:32 pm
yes coffee
20 Apr 2006, 14:35 pm
I’m pissed off!!!
We haven’t had a single article since 7am…
What the **** is going on?!!!!
20 Apr 2006, 14:38 pm
…it’s just a step…to the left…
20 Apr 2006, 14:40 pm
and all together now..LETS DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN! yea rockin mate.
is it friday yet…this is ridiculous it sure as noodle doesn’t feel like a 4 day week.
20 Apr 2006, 14:45 pm
Langman
Sorry man I have been working up a storm
20 Apr 2006, 14:47 pm
that right coffee, the old time warp chestnut, tad patronising, up their bum.
20 Apr 2006, 14:53 pm
hee-hee
20 Apr 2006, 14:58 pm
I agree about the “dumb SA players” point. When a Kiwi youngster enjoys his rugby, he keeps playing and can make decent living off it – even playing club rugby (hell, even bartenders earna decent wage there). And when his ten year career is finished, he can earn a decent wage as a salesman/bartender/etc.
BUT If a SA youngster decides to go the rugby route, he can’t make a decent living off club rugby (and then his career is only ten years). He must be the best in the province or live like a pauper. And when his rugby career is over he must have made millions to be able to retire or buy a business, or become a salesman and move to the townships.
The net result is that when a clever SA youngster who can play is faced with the choice: Rugby or University, there is realy only one choice. Rugby (and perhaps coaching too?) is then left to those not-so-sharp knives with bulging muscles in the box to see if they can eke a living out of it. Only very few of our professional ruby players nowadays can claim to have degrees, or even be capable of getting them. In the old days of amauteur rugby, the doctors and lawyers played Bok rugby in their spare time for fun. This is not possible nowdays because of the time and conditionng required.
20 Apr 2006, 17:06 pm
CAB, post no 129: “time warp my ***, take the blinkers off yourself Davo.”
nice rebuttal.
thankfully for SA Rugby, dickie muir and Jake (to a lesser extent) aren’t as introspective.
20 Apr 2006, 17:31 pm
yip, luckily thats why Jake has been accused of a preoccupation with size and why the sharks are doing so well with Ackerman at 4, a monster scummer at 3 in BJ and AJ the old enforcer in the backrow. luckily indeed.
dont got me wrong i like the fancy stuff to, and the sharks are playing great rugby.
20 Apr 2006, 18:22 pm
Mclaren, Youre an idiot!!!
how can you tell me that young ruan pienaar is better then the experienced and skiller ricky janurie, or that Jaco is better then percy. or that Schalk is better then Smit, we need a captain. i’ll reserve my opinion on this matter
but maclaren is an ***.
21 Apr 2006, 00:45 am
And the coaches cannot be “one-trick ponies”. During the off-season they have to work out NEW moves and strategies that the opposition has not worked out the counter to. Now that the Oz and NZ coaches have worked out that a flat grubber kick and chase counters Jake White’s excellent “rush defence”, has Jake worked out a second trick to stay ahead of the game? He won the 3N (albeit on bonus points only) at his first attempt, but a year later he had to hand over the silverware back to NZ (again, only on bonus points, to be fair).
But Graham Henry has taken THREE full test teams not for a tame little hit around against Italy or Romania, but for a Grand Slam end-of-season tour when his men were all clapped out after whitewashing the British Lions and then wrapping up the 3N with only one defeat in the whole season.
All three of those Grand Slam teams won their tests and accomplished the grand slam mission, including putting England away at Twickenham.
And this is two years out from the Rugby World Cup — now that speaks of proper planning. Not “resting” your key players and handing a full test jersey a bunch of aspirant second-raters who are out of their depth and **** it all up and lose their “gimme” test and so blight the jersey they wear!
PROPER planning means you don’t concede test defeats. Not under ANY circumstances. You might not win each test by massive margins by carefully blooding new test players, but you do not, ever, plan to “build a team” if it involves losing tests on the indelible permanent record.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.