SA by 10, but I’m still unhappy
November 9, 2012 in Uncategorized
It’s no secret that SA sports fans, and rugby fans in particular, are very hard to please.
It’s been a long time since I’ve been happy with a Springbok team, and I’m not talking about 1 or 2 differences I’d like to see, I’m talking 4 or 5.
Leading up to the previous World Cup there were too many out of form players, guys who could have been replaced if PDiv had thought to do so beforehand. He stuck with his team though, a 50-50 gamble he took that didn’t pay off. Playing players back to form at international level is not advised and I think PDiv missed a big trick there.
Then came HM, and his obsession with size. Baylion wrote a good post a couple of months ago in which he compared the sizes of players in certain positions which has proven to be very true when it comes to HM’s choices. Lambie, De Jongh, Daniels and others have all had to take a back seat while bigger (and arguably less talented) players have been first choice. This has continued into the end of year tour.
So let me get onto this weekends team. First off, I actually don’t have too much of an issue with Kirchner at 15, but only because I have so many other positions in the backline I want changed that it’s good to keep a few consistent. Kirchner hasn’t been poor, he just hasn’t been great. He doesn’t offer the flair of a Gio Aplon, but then again, he doesn’t do too much wrong either, so he can remain. Many might argue for Taute, Ludik or Aplon at 15, and any of those would be great.
Problem 1: Taute over Juan de Jongh. Clearly a size issue here. Taute is out of position at 13 while de Jongh is a natural. Would like to have seen Taute on the bench (where he can then cover 13 and 15) and de Jongh starting.
Problem 2: Jean de Villiers. I have nothing but respect for Jean de Villiers but lets face, he’s not getting any younger. EOYT’s are used by many coaches to blood youngsters and since Jean isn’t going to make it to the next World Cup, we might as well try out a few youngsters who could possibly replace him. Add to that the fact he is a bit low on form and there isn’t much reason for him to be there, apart from as captain. He was also an injury concern before the team selection.
Problem 3: Francios Hougaard. I am a big fan of his but his form is not something many people are talking about at the moment. Mvovo did make a mistake in that 1 game, but is 1 mistake enough to allow an out of form SCRUMHALF (he doesn’t play wing often) to take his place? Hougaard on the bench makes more sense as he can then cover scrumhalf and wing, so starting Mvovo would be a better choice for me. He is also better suited as an impact player in my opinion.
Problem 4: Flouw. Not selecting another fetcher is the real problem here as Flouw is a quality player, but 2 days ago he was still an injury concern so rushing him back into the team is not a wise move. Having a different fetcher start and bringing Flouw back on the bench would be in his best interests.
Problem 5: Steyn on the bench. Clearly he is not an impact player, especially in recent form, so what is he doing on the bench apart from providing cover incase Lambie gets injured? I would much rather see Jantjies on the bench for a few reasons. Steyn has been overplayed to the highest degree in the past 2 years and it is clearly affecting his game. Jantjies has done well in a struggling Lions team, but it would be nice to see what he can do when he’s playing for a team that is likely to be dominant.
Well thats 5 problems but I’d like to raise another issue as well: the squad selection. Groom and Reinach were ignored in favour of Vermaak. Jano Vermaak was in the form of his life a few years ago at the Lions, but since moving to the Bulls he has hardly seen any game time. How can form youngsters be ignored for the EOYT while a guy who has played 10 games in 2 years is selected ahead of them? There seems to be no young centers in the squad, despite the fact that we currently have an abbundance of talented youngsters.
Anyways, despite these problems we should easily overcome an injury depleted Irish team. Even with our own injuries we have managed to (somewhat) easily replace certain stallwarts.
One more thing before I sign off, I don’t think HM has any racial issues. I think that his team selection is mainly based on size and that is why guys like de Jongh, Aplon, Jantjies, Kolisi, etc are not being selected.
Sorry about the CAPTCHA, I recieve too many spam messages to take it off 
Baylion said on November 9, 2012
Good points all.
As to Jano your point is valid but the main issue I have is that he has now been in the Bok squad for 10 tests and have been sitting in the cheap seats all that time. So why is he in the squad if he’s not going to even make the bench? As you say, someone like Groom or Reinach might have been a better option even if they didn’t get playing time.
As to HM, I am starting to worry about his illogical selections.
For a while now he has been saying that he sees Lambie as a fullback and suddenly he starts him over Jantjies. Not that Lambie don’t deserve his chance after being left on the bench so long but there’s no logic to this decision.
The same with Taute. Pre-tour HM said that he sees Taute as the future fullback (a position Taute apparently prefers) but come test time he doesn’t select him there but at #13
I cannot graps his logic
punishr said on November 9, 2012
Lambie and Taute are both seen as fullbacks but they start ahead of players who would be seen as naturals in their respective positions. No logic at all, unless he has absolutely no faith in Jantjies and de Jongh, who most of us see as very talented….
fromthecouch said on November 10, 2012
One of Meyer’s most proven points is his backing of players and rigidity in thinking. Proof of this can be found both in his time at the Bulls and the Tigers in Europe. He is naturally pragmatic and has a strong sense of what he wants to create. It took him a few seasons at the Bulls can we forget 2000 with 1 win from 11 followed by 2002 with 0 wins from 11. In other words Meyer managed 1 win in 22 in his first 2 seasons as a Super Rugby coach. His time as Sprinbok assistant and at Currie Cup level served him well and this is no doubt where his success from 2004 stemmed.
Ironically for much of that period Meyer preferred Derrick Hougaard’s superior kicking game to the more adventurous Morne Steyn. How the fortunes of these two have turned in comparison.
As regards his current selections go I could guess that Meyer has identified the physical threat the Home Nations midfielders provide and would like to size up against them. The trade off is the inexperience of Taute, but he is physically at least in the Jacques Fourie mould. Let us not forget that Mossie too started his career with intent at 15. Taute needs to proove his credentials at 13 in lower level rugby though and specialist 13 Juan de Jongh is surely getting the short end of the stick. He is part of the Stormers backline that was outstanding all Super season and whats more partners Jean de Villiers all year long.
With Habana out I really don’t see the fuss around Hougaard at wing. He plays much like Habana and offers similar threat and with JP Pietersen back he is surely the logical choice?
Lambie and Jantjies in the same 22 especially up north does not make any sense at all, Steyn as a more tactical option off the bench does make sense and his form is the only real concern. Jantjies is an excellent player and is no doubt competing with Lambie as players in the same mould. Lambie has the edge in being able to cover 15.
punishr said on November 10, 2012
The fuss about Hougaard at wing is that he doesn’t play there at CC or SR level, only at international level. He practices half the year as a scrumhalf and the other half the year as a wing. SA coaches have ruined a lot of talented backline players by continually moving them around the backline. Think of how poor Ruan Pienaar was when he was shifting between 9/10/15 compared to now when he can focus on his prefered position of 9.
I disagree with you about Steyn on the bench, surely he needs a break. A tactical kicker doesn’t necessarily have to play flyhalf, so you might expect Pienaar to take over that aspect of the game. Jantjies and Lambie have both been starved of gametime while Steyn has been continually overplayed, so having them play while Steyn rests makes more sense to me.
Are our Northern adversaries so strong that we need all our best players to defeat them? If the English tour in June was anything to go by we can surely afford to rest some players and gives some youngsters a chance to prove themselves.
Chris said on November 9, 2012
I like how you think. I just wish that there was some way to make sense of the team selection. There will always be disagreement over who should start eg: Lambie vs Jantjies. But as long as people can see that there is a logical thought process to the team selection then we’ll be happy. I’m mostly worried that when we beat Ireland the coach will say see it’s fine we don’t need to change… then we get to go through another year of losing to Aus and NZ without bringing in any young talent.
punishr said on November 10, 2012
I’ve given up on making sense of HM’s team selections. When Keegan Daniels was replaced after 50 minutes of international rugby despite being the form loosie throughout Super Rugby it became clear HM will never like smaller, skilled players.
Harry said on November 10, 2012
I have to say that size, weight and muscle does matter quite a bit. For example JdJ and Gio are great runners when there’s space and they also tackle with a lots of heart. But in defense, the attacking team does get most of the time couple of extra meters when tackled by a small guy. Even if a bigger guy goes down eventually, they gain an extra 1-2 meters which they wouldn’t against a bigger guy and this does make a difference in Rugby – especially on the highest test level. When on attach, and if no space the small guys hit the wall and rather get pushed back 1-2m as supposed to gaining.position, the total effect is 2-4m. Look at NZ, and there is starting to be big guys in the back line as well, and in the end of the day it is NZ who is the team to beat if we want to win the next WC. And those extra 1-2m lost in defense and 2-4m not gained in attach means 3-6m in favor for the opponent – and when this happens several time in one game and momentum factor added to this – it is a big deal, especially when it counts.
So I do understand the size logic really well from that perspective.
punishr said on November 10, 2012
I get what you’re saying, but surely that isn’t so much due to size as it is due to power? You get a lot of smallish islander players with really strong leg strength that can gain a few extra meters while they are being tackled. Although neither Aplon or de Jongh have that power there are other smaller guys that do, such as Heinrich Brussouw who has never featured in HM’s plans.
francisco said on November 11, 2012
i do not think lambie and jantjies are in the same mould at all. the one plays a coastal ball in hand type of kicking game(grubber kicks; up and unders etc.) whereas jantjies is a highveld long range kicking game. while jantjies attacking flair has not been coached out of him like steyn’s has i see jantjies as more like steyn.