Not enough evidence Heyneke?
Before the Semi Finals kicked off on Saturday, I made this small wager with a buddy of mine. He is a All Black supporter, but he lobbies a case for Elton Jantjies. According to him Jantjies would be the in form flyhalf going into the finals…premature I know, since the Lions are out of the Currie Cup.
Everyone is suddenly once again noting the prodigious talents of one named Patrick Lambie. The Wunderseun has had two great games at Flyhalf, two MOTM awards and instrumental in his team’s fortune. He has shown great composure as well as a cool level head when taking on the opposition. Morne Steyn I believe was taken back to school. The big question now is whether Heyneke Meyer finally opened his eyes, taken off his Blue Tainted glasses and noted the performances of three players, crucial this weekend if the Sharks are to succeed in winning their 3rd Currie Cup under John Plumtree.
Louis Ludik:
Many still question whether he is the right man for the position, but time and time again he has been the consumate proffessional, and he has shown that he has the ability to play the game that suits his style. Very comfortable and courageous under the High Ball, speed to match when running and good when joining the line from the back, Ludik would without doubt be on of my Sharks Players of the Year.
Patrick Lambie:
He came back home with the Springboks, hungry for game time and he has not dissapointed. He is still the way forward in my opinion, and is a better fit at Flyhalf then Fullback. His Franchise coach also came out in support of him, and I am sure that Plumtree will look to develop his skills at 5.8 instead of giving in to the immidation Heyneke Meyer seem to have over his chronies.
Keegan Daniel:
One of the nominees for SA Player of the Year, Daniel has relished the role of captain, and even I was very vocal about his first two games in charge. He took it on, and did me proud. Still a very good option for the End of Year Tour, very unlucky not to be kept in the Springbok Squad, the coach instead opting for brute strenght over intelligence.
This country has really had it’s amount of bad press over the last few months. The strikes by miners, truck drivers, crippling our transport system in the meantime, the killing of the miners a month or so ago, all leads me to believe that this country has gone bonkers. And if Heyneke Meyer decides that he will rather select someone, anyone else instead of Patrick Lambie at Flyhalf for the End of Year Tour, then I say our coach has gone befok.
Met uysh:
October 23rd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
No doubt if Meyer prefers Kirchner over Lambie for 15, I don’t see him even thinking about Luddik. Daniel is great at 8 for the Sharks and did not have much chance to prove himself in the Bok jersey, but the physical approach of Meyer’s game plan may not suit his style. But he needs to be given enough opportunity to show if he can.
GEN DE LA REY:
October 23rd, 2012 at 2:01 pm
This is why it was such a pity the Sharks played Freddie at 10. You cannot blame HM for not selecting Lambie at 10 if Plumtee did not even select him at 10.
Yes he has had 2 great games but it is the CC and not S15 and his forwards are dominating making it a lot easier than say a test or S15.
But yes I do believe Lambie deserves a chance to stake his claim. But you can’t blame HM for not selecting Lambie at 10.
Also liked what I have seen from Ludik but HM really rates Zane why? No one knows.
As for Keegan not sure he fits HM style of lose forward. He is more an Alberts fan. But Daniels has had some great CC and S15 games. Did nothing special for the Boks but then did not get a lot of time either.
Byron:
October 23rd, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Lambie was initially picked to play flyhalf and did so in S15 until he was injured. Freddie had played scrumhalf up until then and played well in Lambie’s absence. Plum, as he has done with Reinach, stuck with the player who took his chances and Lambie slotted into fullback when he returned from injury. Lambie was, and is first choice flyhalf for the Sharks according to Plumtree.
BBF:
October 23rd, 2012 at 2:49 pm
ELTON IS BETTER THAN LAMBIE!! Ok now that I have your attention – jokes aside. I would love to see Lambie in the no 10 Springbok jersey as he really proves himself time and again. Elton needs to work on his BMT, Goosen needs to harden up, Morne needs to f-off – so we are left with the kid deserving to have a shot. Hope Lambie repeat what he did in the final a couple of yrs ago. Go Sharks!
Cash:
October 23rd, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Plumtree said that Lambie was the first choice 10 last year until he was injured and when he came back Freddie was in form and Gen that is a lousy excuse because Marcel was playing in the 7 Jumper for the sharks and Taute 15 most of the time,Hougie 9 but was played at 11 and vermaak was not playing but still selected
REM:
October 23rd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Generaal I will blame him. Reason is quite simple..
He saw that Morne was having a off few test….yet he persisted. Hougaard was playing crap, yet he made him a wing…a position he featured in twice I think. So picking Lambie at Flyhalf would only have made his life more difficult if the kid performed.
REM:
October 23rd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Horses for courses se ma se moer ekse!
jollifier:
October 23rd, 2012 at 4:43 pm
De la Rey, could Zane’s selection have something to do with quotas? The BEE system is rife in the work place [see woolworths, engen, etc etc etc ] why would sport be any different? They just cant say it in sport, as they do in the work place, as international teams would then know they are not playing against the best, but a team with political appointees. P. Divvy, was a political BEE choice, so there is the reason for Zane. HM cannot play a team that does not reflect commitment to transformation !
francisco:
October 23rd, 2012 at 8:47 pm
look it’s not that i don’t agree with your opinions on excellent players. my argument is that it’s not your gameplan the team has to follow but the national coach. he has to select the team that will best carry out his game plan. i really couldn’t care less who he chooses i just want to be the best rugby team in the world for more than one season. and not just for the world cup comp. how the national coach does it is his job all i want are the results.
Dean:
October 24th, 2012 at 7:51 am
Sharks victory over Bulls showed HM’s selection and tactics up in a number of areas. A few that stood out. Ludik over Kirschner. Lambie over Steyn. Bresler over Kruger.
sheriffff:
October 24th, 2012 at 8:53 am
@gen de la rey – Lambie has also been extremely impressive and has already proved himself in the number 10 jersey at Super Rugby Level, he made the highlanders look like school boys in one game.
GEN DE LA REY:
October 24th, 2012 at 9:10 am
This is the thing if Lambie was so good why did Freddie end the S15 as 1st choice?
It is not as if the Sharks do not have 15′s?
I also rate Lambie but for all the good Plumtree did in his career and there is a lot.
He also really delayed or messed up a few players careers by not selecting them in there preferred positions. (pienaar, Frans)
So to lay all the blame at HM and to think Plum had not hand in Lambie’s delayed development is naive.
GEN DE LA REY:
October 24th, 2012 at 9:15 am
Look HM has a Bulls fetish and I’m deff not his biggest fan.
Fact: Lambie was moved from 10 to 15. If you remembered correctly the Sharks did not have the best of starts to the season. (not Lambie’s fault) Lambie was also seriously out of form for the last few Sharks games he played.
I am just saying laying all the blame at HM is naive.
Plum should not invest in French players when he could develop SA talent esp one of Lambie’s caliber.
Met uysh:
October 24th, 2012 at 9:16 am
Ja I think HM just thought of an excuse not to play Lambie. Have you seen Robbie Deans say he cannot play Beale at FH because he didn’t play enough FH for the Rebels this year? Too much is made of this thing of playing “in position” It has some merit but for special players like Lambie that is just utter bullshit. Jaque Fourie played full back for his province and he was one of our best centres. Hennie le Roux used to play flyhalf for his province and played centre for the Boks. Honnibal used to switch between centre and flyhalf. And then think of guys like Mortlock, Larkham etc who also played their way around the backline. Meyer was just looking for excuses to stick with certain players. Now he apparantly says he will consider Lambie, so what then has changed? Two Currie Cup games vs an entire Super Rugby and test season and NOW he will consider Lambie at FH? Maybe he realises he’s been making a big mistake and that his views aren’t neccessarily correct.
GEN DE LA REY:
October 24th, 2012 at 9:18 am
Fact: Lambie started at 10 for Sharks – Sharks had slow start to season.
Fact: Lambie was moved to 15 by Plum instead of proving his credentials at 10.
Fact: Lambie is yet to prove his worth in the S15 (not just one good game but a series of good ones)
Fact: Lambie is a great player and might be the future bok 10. But his development was delayed by Plum selecting a french boy instead of him.
Adrien:
October 24th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Every time I see Ludik play, I am amazed he hasnt got the nod ahead of Kirchner. (I suspect that Kirchner Is something of a political selection !). I think that unlike Kirchner, Ludik is fealess, multi dimensional and immensley skillfull.He combines naturally into the backline and his positional defensive play is really good..
Although I am a Sharks supporter , I am not 100% sure of Daniel at No 8. I say this because his style of play does not fit into the Bok style off the back of the scrum. So for Daniel to be selected there needs to be a fundemental change in the game plan. There is no doubt that he is an energetic, tireless performer. My comment here is …. thank goodness Spies is injured and not available for selection !!!
At No 10, there is no doubt about the need for change. The youngsters knocking on the door are complete rugby players, not just kickers. Morne Steyn has been glorified by his kicking statistics, but if you look at it , it is merely a result of the team earning him the right to kick at goal. We have many players that would have acheived the same results given the opportunity. Do you ever recall anyone saying that MS did something special in general play? I doubt it. In the S15 MS was a distant 3rd in accuracy of the SA kickers. So without his kicking he has little to offer. Someone also posted some stats recently showing that the Boks had a 58% win ratio with MS at 10, compared to over 70% with other Flyhalfs. I would say that this is due to his constant habit of kicking away possession. In my opinion Lambie should be nurtured thru to the next RWC at 10. By that time he will be a seasoned campaigner.
Whilst all the positions on the field are important, the selection at 10 is crucial to the game plan and the flow of the game. Lets make sure we make the right decision here.
And just to finish…. Go Sharks !!! LOL!
GEN DE LA REY:
October 24th, 2012 at 9:22 am
I am not saying Lambie should not play 10 for boks I am saying you can’t blame HM alone.
FH is a specialist position and diff widely from 15. Lambie could have been 1 season further developed as a FH but Plum did not trust him.
Beale only played 10 because O’conor and Cooper was injured it is different.
Jacques:
October 24th, 2012 at 10:21 am
No man, you have it all wrong. Did you not read the article a few weeks back where Plum told the media that everyone has short term memory loss? Lambie was always the preferred starting 10 and if you remember correctly, Freddie came on in 2nd half or whenever the game suited it. Lambie got injured and then went to the Boks. Freddie took over the reigns and performed brilliantly. So Plum said when Lambie came back and Freddie was on a role, why change something that was working so well.
It should definitely be Lambie at 10, Ludik at 15 for Sharks and possibly the Boks. Ludik has done everything right this year and has proved himself without a doubt to be a top fullback BUT WITH added extra’s as he creates more opportunities and plays a better general game than Kirchner ever will.
And my opinion is that a Bok squad should never be without a guy like Keegan Daniel but unfortunately his size seems to be a difference. Vermeulen is only 8kg’s and 5cm’s bigger than Keegan so I really don’t see the big issue especially if you have guys like Alberts and Louw in the loose mix. Anyway, its the story of life in SA as a creative, really intelligent player who will not be picked because of size. Its actually a little ridiculous but at times, the game plan could suggest a need for both types of players.
Jacques:
October 24th, 2012 at 11:11 am
People don’t recruit overseas players just for the fun of it. Have you seen the difference Freddie made to the Sharks backline and the general play? Same as Carlos Spencer did for the Lions and even though they out AND relegated from S15 next year, they at least played positive running rugby, they tried to be creative and out of the box. If a few decisions went their way and if the CC teams stayed the way they were before the Boks came back, I’m pretty sure they would have been in for a fair chance of taking the Cup.
Overseas players bring a different dimension to local rugby as everyone is so caught up on size, brute strength, drive, maul, up and under and hope for the best. When Percy went abroad and came back, he was a totally different player. Freddie gave the Sharks more confidence and showed that creativity can be contagious IF and WHEN the coaches actually allow the players some freedom to express their own style of play … Viva Plum for Coach of the year and Sharks for taking the Currie Cup to where it belongs! They are deserved winners and although it will be a tough encounter, I believe Sharks will bring it home!
Met uysh:
October 24th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
“Fact: Lambie started at 10 for Sharks – Sharks had slow start to season” And where were the Bulls and the Lions with Morne and Elton as their FH’s?
“Fact: Lambie was moved to 15 by Plum instead of proving his credentials at 10.” Not a snub of Lambie. More a recognition of his abilities to play at 15 and 10. Why pay Michalak millions just to have him sit on the bench and not get your money’s worth out of him? if Michalak was a South African he would have been a Springbok, but he’s not, but still better than most SA flyhalves in the S 15.
“Fact: Lambie is yet to prove his worth in the S15 (not just one good game but a series of good ones)” If you still believe that then you have not been watching him play since he was 19. He’s proven his worth more than enough.
That sort of reasoning is short sighted by Meyer.
Met uysh:
October 24th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Well, Goosen is injured and Steyn is off form, so do we just stick with second best instead of using the opportunity we have in Lambie who is a great player? 10 is a specialist position but if you can draw to the AB’s with a non-incumbant flyhalf in charge I’d rather think it depends on the player more than on the position. My view is that’s its kak to assume someone cannot play flyhalf just because he is more often used in other positions. I do not blame only HM, I also blame Ricardo Laubscher and the rest of the coaching stafff.
Put aside the flyhalf position, HM was also full of shit for not picking Lambie at FB. All this out of position nonsense are flimsy excuses that doesn’t hold up.
Met uysh:
October 24th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
You can also not blame Plum. If you were coach and had the option to pick Dan Carter, would you? Yes, you would. Anyone would. Because its about winning the Super Rugby. And if that means the second best flyhalf in your squad, who happens to be the best flyhalf in the country, then has to play full back, so be it, because its about the team. If the national coach is too blind to see the talent, then its not the Super Rugby coach’s fault.
Cash:
October 25th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
I’d say outsidecentre is much more of a specialist position than FH but JDV was played there without even playing there before and how many games did Jaco play at O/C??
Badger:
October 25th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I’m not a fan of HM either, but I agree that playing Lambie at 10 wasnt an option as Plumtree didnt play him there. You can say but Michalak was there. Why did he bring Michalak in if he had Lambie. Obviously because he wasnt himself so sure of Lambie at 10.
Lousi Ludik is good. Better than Kirchner yes, but we ahve many good fullbacks in SA, Joe Pietersen and Jaco Taute > what makes Ludik better than either of these two. HM is grooming Taute for springboks , doesnt mean he will be a center but he wants him in the mix.
Keegan Daniel is good and yes he didnt get much game time but he also didnt really shine. He wasnt bad but he wasnt great either. Is Keegan Daniel better then Duane Vermuelen, is he better than Alberts or Coetzee or the string of other great loosies we have in this country. I think Keegans problem is that with a player like francois louw in the mix, who is quick, big, steals ball and runs quite well with it, HM will default to two bigger loosies to play with him and this is where Keegan falls short.
DieHardLion:
October 25th, 2012 at 2:25 pm
@GEN DE LA REY – I will quote John Plumtree in this regard. “People have very short memories”. If you review all the games that Patrick Lambie was available to play for the super rugby competition, he played the majority of them at flyhalf, not fullback. Pat played fullback towards the end of the super rugby season because if you remember (which I’m not too sure many people do) he got injured during the English tour. When he was fit, Michalak was playing at 10 and was playing well but because John knew he couldn’t leave Pat out, he put him in at fullback where he has played before.
Riaan:
October 25th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Lambie was the Sharks first choice at flyhalf the begening of the year and then got injured and then Michalak started at 10 the first time for the Sharks. Hhe was magnificent then, then Lambie came back from injury and was sloted in the number 10 jersey above Michalak and he moved to 9. Sharks bad start was not due to Lambie any since as we lost games by 1 to 5 points at most….not blamming the ref but had some bad calls against us at bad times, but thats what you call you win some or you lose some…Then Heyneke chose his Springbok squad and suddenly Lambie was playing 15, HM told Plumtree to play Lambie there and forced him into this as Plumtree always has said and still saying Lambie is a flyhalf! So its all on HM not Plumtree and Lambie still percits to play 10 as well……
Byron:
October 25th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Played 6 not 8 for the boks
Badger:
October 25th, 2012 at 4:11 pm
If you bothered to read my post clearly you would have seen that I said because of the selection of francois louw who was in sublime form, a smaller mobile loosie like keegan daniel was not needed. So HM went for the big boys.
Sannahan:
October 25th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Plumtree gave his explanation regarding Lambie and Michalak. At the start of the Super 15 Lambie was the favourite for the flyhalf berth and Michalak got most of his game time as a scrumhalf.
Lambie sustained an injury and Michalak was moved to flyhalf. Michalak became pivotal during the resurgence of the Sharks, so the Sharks management decided to play Lambie at fullback and that was probably for the last few matches only. Plumtree’s reasoning makes perfect sense to me.
However, I like it that he has openly stated that Lambie will be his no. ! flyhalf for the coming Super 15 season.
I think that if he could manage this standard of flyhalf play when none of the other flyhalfs put up a hand, he must be fairly acknowledged by HM.
Chris P:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:06 am
Gen d l R get your facts correct. Lambie started at 10 in the S15 and then was injured (Freddie was selected as reserve scrum half). Freddie was then picked at No. 10. where he had an excellent season. When Lambie returned from injury Plum couldn’t very well drop Freddie, and Lambie, having a shrewd rugby brain and being a very good player, couldn’t be left out of the team and was thus selected as full back where his talents could still be used. If HM had any sense or rugby brain he should have used Lambue at No 10 esp when Morne was costing us the games. How many chances must one get to prove he is useless??????
Den:
October 26th, 2012 at 12:52 am
Plum chose Freddie because Lambie was injured for so long at the beginning of the Super15. Then when lambie came back Freddie was playing some of his best rugby ever at 10 ( France even called him back for internationals straight after Super 15 when they hadn’t used him for so long – suddenly they saw how well he was playing. They put him straight in the starting line-up ) so Plum didn’t want to mess with that. But he wanted to use Lambie as well. So fullback was an interim measure.
Jacques Denysschen:
October 26th, 2012 at 8:05 am
I honestly believe that one of the reasons Lambie is playing so well at flyhalf now is because Freddie was played there. Lambie learned from Freddie and is now ready to take it to the next level. I’m pretty sure Freddie would have taken Lambie under his wing and taught him everything he could. So I don’t see it as a bad thing that Freddie was first choice.
Jacques Denysschen:
October 26th, 2012 at 8:09 am
I think the investment make in Freddie paid off big time through the experience he was able to pass onto Lambie. Lambie has become a far more all round flyhalf since Freddies been with the sharks. This is only my opinion but I believe it to be right.
Travis:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Gen, you are talking rubbish about Plum and his use of Lambie. Understand this, please. Lambie was injured, and so Freddie stepped in, and was playing out of his socks. When Lambie came back, Plum didn’t want to change a winning combination and tried to keep the momentum by keeping Freddie at 10, and introducing Lambie at 15, which helped because of injuries. Lambie has played 10 since 2010, so don’t tell me HM didn’t have a chance to look at him. Pathetic. Plum has stated from the beginning that Lambie is his #1 FH, but his decision to keep Freddie at 10 for the time was a good one because of the purple patch of form, and it was a good decision. Surely HM is a better coach than to say that he didn’t get a chance to see Lambie play at 10. Please tell me he is better than that.
Travis:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:22 am
When was Lambie “seriously out of form”. I have been watching him since 2010, and I have seen him play one bad game, and that was the S15 final this year. Given that they had serious travel issues, I thought that was understandable, but to say he was seriously out of form is nothing but hogwash. His kicking stats have been better than MS all season, so I am not sure where your comment comes from.
Bateleur Bok:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:36 am
On the plus side, if Lambie can channel all the lack-of-game-time frustration he’s been storing up on the Bok bench into positive energy, then it’s only going to strengthen his character and make him even hungrier for the position. Seems to me this is what he’s already been doing. Could that have been part of HM’s plan, or is that giving him too much credit?
The Green Man:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:52 am
I think I am a bit slow with my comment as I see this “featured blog” is actually 3 days old. Here goes anyway …
I was always of the opinion that Goosen and Elton were the ideal rotation for the Bok 10 jersey with Lambie becoming the permanent 15. I am not so sure anymore!
What I am still sure of though is that Goosen will be the pivot at 10 for years to come. I don’t think we need to worry so much about his injuries. Those that say he needs to toughen up are actually missing the boat. The reason he has been injured is because he is so tough on himself and also gives all on defence. Much like Johnny Wilkinson. He will overcome his injuries and have sustained periods of injury-free sublime rugby
Now to the EOYT … Lambie should start with Elton on the bench and Steyn kicked into touch. Chances? Only HM knows!
For the future, in Goosen, Lambie and Elton we have three of the best flyhalves SA has produced in many years making the Boks very fortunate. With all of them fit I believe Goosen should be the pivot. With all the rugby that is played though a string rotation policy can be implemented affording all three these players ample game time.
That’s my 2 cents!
The Green Man:
October 26th, 2012 at 10:56 am
PS. To comment on 15 with my change of opinion on 10 … It surely has to be Taute that stakes his claim here. Ludik can be the back-up.
With that said, with all the quality centres coming through I would not be surprised if we see Frans Steyn moving to full back again. He is still a MUST in any team. Yes, he may prefer inside centre but he can be equally potent at full back. Though at centre I think all three proposed flyhalves will bring out the best in Frans and we should see a lot more line breaks and side stepping again.
FreedomNic:
October 26th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Lambie all the way for the Boks at 10 no doubt,…. Daniel should be on tour to UK aswell if HM catches a wake up….
Patriot:
October 27th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Lambie is class and will always be in my Bok side be it 10, 12 or 15……
But but what did Elton do wrong? Win a currie cup with a bunch of plonkers.
Butch, John Mitchell and even mallet rates him as the best 10 in the country yet race must always play a factor.
Nobody remembers how Elton made gooseneck look like a idiot or how he orchestrated beating us ( sharks ) in the the round which could have given us a home semi?
Somebody come back to me….
Lucas Carstens:
October 27th, 2012 at 11:00 am
Lambie got injured, by the time he recovered, Freddie was in the form of his life, that’s why he continued playing in the 10 jersey for the sharks.
that is the only reason.
REM:
October 27th, 2012 at 11:43 am
I never believed in racial selections,and never will. I think Elton has the potential to be a great. I just think that Lambie has a cooler head on him.
Christy:
October 28th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
And why is there NO article on how Catrikilis schooled Lambie?
Christy:
October 28th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
lol