Bok banter, with a hint of Basil
Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:53
Springbok coach Peter de Villiers came out of his corner on Thursday to announce his 'salvation' side. Bok Republic as always had the final say. If you have an opinion, you have the Write of Reply!
Springbok team announcement for the Johannesburg Tri-Nations Test...
I would like to ask Mr. De Villiers when is he going to wake up if ever? Brian Mujati has to be the worst Tighthead Prop in world rugby the "Springbok Pack" is going to be going backwards faster than Mr. De Villiers can spell the word backwards. As for the persistent selection of Luke Watson this just baffles the mind. There are numerous loose forwards in this country who are a country mile better than Luke Watson ever will be. All he has achieved in his last couple of appearances is to get in the way and knock the ball on. Put simply Luke Watson is not an international
rugby players proverbial.
Maybe it is time for the Rugby Supporters of this once great rugby playing nation to stand together and force a change in the way in which rugby is being run in this country. Enough is enough.
- Greg Koevort
South Africa: 15 Conrad Jantjes, 14 Odwa Ndungane, 13 Adrian Jacobs, 12 Jean de Villiers, 11 Jongi Nokwe, 10 Ruan Pienaar, 9 Ricky Januarie, 8 Pierre Spies, 7 Juan Smith, 6 Schalk Burger, 5 Victor Matfield (captain), 4 Andries Bekker, 3 Lawrence Sephaka 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Beast Mtawarira.
Replacements: 16 Adriaan Strauss, 17 Jannie du Plessis, 18 Danie Rossouw, 19 Wikus van Heerden 20 Butch James 21 Fourie du Preez 22 Percy Montgomery
- Coenie van Rensburg
15.Percy Montgomery, 14. Conrad Jantjies, 13. Frans Steyn, 12. Jean de Villiers, 11. Odwa Ndungane, 10. Butch James, 9. Fourie du Preez, 8. Pierre Spies, 7. Jaun Smith, 6. Scalk Burger, 5. Victor Matfield, 4. Danie
Rossouw, 3. BJ Botha, 2. Bismarck du Plessis, 1. Jannie du plessis.
- Frikkie Booysen
I would have selected Luke Watson as number 7, with Juan Smith (off-form) on the bench, but with strict instructions to play a fetcher's role to counter Phil Waugh and George Smith.
With so many rucks and mauls, compared to scrums and line outs, we must play a recognised fetcher. There are too many show ponies on the field.
I would also have started with Ricky January and then bring on Fourie du Preez (off-form) after half time, depending on how the match was going.
- Huby Thorndike
South Africa: 15 Percy Montgomery, 14 Pierre Spies, 13 Ruaan Pienaar, 12 Jean de Villiers, 11 Jongi Nokwe, 10 Francois Steyn, 9 Fourie du Preez, 8 Joe Van Niekerk, 7 Juan Smith, 6 Schalk Burger, 5 Victor Matfield (captain), 4 Danie Rossouw, 3 Jannie Duplesis, 2 Bismarck du Plessis, 1 Beast Mtawarira.
- Les Snyman
15 Conrad
Jantjies, 14 Nokwe, 13 Steyn, 12 Jacobs, 10 James, 9 January, 11 Odwa, 8 Spies, 7 Kankowski, 6 Burger, 5 Matfield, 4 Bekker, 3 Jannie Du Plessis, 2 Schalk Britz, 1 Beast.
- Eric Philander
Romance or realism? Basil Bey's charges at PdV...
Re your comment 'I can think of a couple of loose forwards from Natal...'
But you forgot to mention the most notable non conformist Tommy Bedford. What about those other great mavericks we have had the pleasure of watching like Jan Ellis, Keith Oxlee, Karel Du Plessis, Danie Gerber all who would have not have made the current Springbok team because they were smaller then the regulation bullocks now being chosen and because they also 'danced to their own tune'. Maybe our springbok 'brain's trust' needs to go back to the visions of Izak van Heerden - whose fundamentals on the tight loose, moving the ball wide, smothering support, the 'bajada' and everything else done at
breakneck speed has been neglected for to long now
- Damaverick
Definitely romance.
It is a nice idea that De Villiers has, but the point is that his expansive game nullifies our strengths up front.
One of the beauties of watching world rugby is watching nations with different styles clash. Like when we play the Kiwis - they like to throw it around, we are physical and feed off errors. What is wrong with that? We have the talent to play a more expansive game, but we should concentrate rather on our traditional strengths, and phase in a more expansive game once we can win ball at the breakdown and dominate upfront.
For me De Villiers game plan of throwing the ball around before concentrating on getting the ball off the likes of Smith, Waugh and McCaw shows just how naïve he is at this level. Even an expansive game requires huge tactical skill, and I did not see much evidence of that over the last few weeks, the Boks look bewildered,
and Matfield being confused over how the breakdown was being blown up just shows lack of coaching preparation. Demote De Villiers to assistant, and bring in Jones or Muir I reckon.
At the end of the day, what would Graham Henry or Robbie Deans be doing with the Bok side? As far as I can see from the talent we have, we should be hammering the present day NZ and Aus sides, not getting hammered by them.
- Chris Salmon
I would like to add to what Mr Bey has stated in his article. The expansive game is but one component of a game called rugby. Rugby is the game of life and is built on a team’s ability to create space and time. Question? If a set move(sequence) from a set piece is meant to create space outside of the second centre so that we create an opportunity to break down the defence here and by some stroke of rugby luck the space shows itself outside of the flyhalf, do we follow the set move or do we attack the new space that has opened up. I
am sure that many coaches would have different opinions on this, but one thing is sure whatever your opinion, you require players who can think on their feet(tactical decision makers) to make these calls, knowing what the possible outcomes will be. Again if we cannot keep the ball by protecting it at the breakpoint and recycling it quicker we will not ever be confronted by these opportunities to attack space. When you attack this space the players need to know each other and have the ability to run angles off the ball and make accurate passes to put the speedsters away in new space created from there. That to me is an expansive approach, one based on doing all the basics right first. We need to dominate at lineout time, we need to scrum and secure right shoulder ball to get the carriers on the front foot, we need numbers at the break point who can intimidate with a good body position(BAKKIES) we need backs and loose forwards who can tackle man and ball, get up on their feet quickly
and renter the play. If we can manage this and create the space to play in the bokkies will start dominating world rugby and be worthy of being called BOKKE once more.
- Calla Niemand
I certainly don't have Basil's expertise and understanding of rugby, but I would like to pick up on his comments about playing expansive rugby.
I agree that South African sides need to expand our repetoire from being limited to large forwards and large centre's crashing the ball up the middle. South Africa historically rarely scored tries through the wings. For some reason, we seemed to save wingers for defensive duties.
Rugby is like chess, the initial starting positions are the strongest defensively, hence first phase tries are rare. We must feint and push and pull our opponent's structure out of place before the gaps open up or we find a prop defending on the wing.
Expansive rugby has it's place, but it needs to be applied selectively. Not in the first
phase, not when defences are set and not out of desperation, but out of a position of strength. When your opponents are struggling to maintain their structure is the time to unleash the expansive game and put them to the sword.
There are players in the South African side that can play this game, however, nobody can play this off the first phase or slow secondary phase ball. As Basil said the expansive game puts you at risk of turning over your attacking ball. Look at last week's test, South Africa turned over possession 16 times, 7 times in their opponent's 22. I don't know any side that could win doing this. The South African fowards were all standing in the line, with no one in a position to clear-out the tackle area and retain the ball.
South Africa did not compete at the breakdown to secure their own ball (in fact, they did not compete at the Australian breakdown or lineout allowing the Australian's free ball).
Mr. De Villier's can persue his expansive game plan to
his heart's content, but if he wants to win, he firstly needs to win and retain the ball, secondly, he needs to create space before he can launch his expansive gameplan.
- Matthew Brown
Everything Basil Bey says may be correct, but the point is that this expansive approach requires coaching (perhaps even more so than the traditional approach). And that is the problem. SA does not have a coach.
- Timothy Baker
Eddie Jones' two cents on the ELVs...
It's not a wonder that Eddie can't see the value in the ELV's. As a Wallabies Coach he was so intent on structure that talented players of the highest calibre forgot how to back themselves and do something mercurial. They ran through the motions like mindless automatons, predictable and boring. In essence the coach played the Rugby and the players were just pawns. His only problem was that there were a few others around who could do it just a little better than
he could.
If you believe this is a misguided attempt by Australia to compensate for the fact that we can't produce a pack of mindless, knuckle dragging Neanderthals Meatheads who just need a Flyhalf who can kick a ball out somewhere down the paddock because they can't walk that far, let alone run, you have missed the whole point, which of course Eddie has. The ELV's will help keep the game relevant going into the future.
If the game doesn't renovate it will stagnate.
- Mark Emery, Australia
ELV’s are good for rugby. Rugby enthusiasts are now seeing that expansive rugby style we’ve been longing for.
No more try droubt and backline flair at its best. For eighty minutes fans actually see the flyers in action.
Eddie Jones is conservative and his Coaching style will do no team good any longer.
- Eric Garth Philander
Fleckie's column...
In Robbie Flecks recent article titled
"Boks need some structure" Robbie mentions that Dan Carter was firing on all cylinders.
I watched the game and It appeared to me that Dan Carter was far from his best, resulting in him missing (about) 6 out of 7 kicks at goal...
Had he hit the target the final score would have read something like, 38-0. Then commentators would say that the All Blacks were devastating...
- Simon Berrange
Other opinion...
SA rugby made a hash of things even before the World Cup when they announced that Jake White will be replaced. New Zeeland on the other hand, after bowing out to France after yet another blunder by the referee, stood by Graham Henry. It might come back to haunt them or they could be proven correct. So far so good! Back to SA Rugby and their decision to appoint Peter de Villiers as coach.
Firstly, they made it very clear that the next coach will represent the demographics of South Africa. In other words not white. In essence
there is nothing wrong with that. Errol Tobais told Rapport Newspaper over the weekend that De Villiers must stop pick the blackest player and pick the best; stop picking the whitest player and pick the cleverest. Had SA Rugby only followed his advice!!! I don’t think De Villiers is a bad coach. But I do now this: because of SA Rugby’s initial statement prior to his appointment De Villiers is between a rock and a hard place. He will not get any sympathy from the rugby public in South Africa - because their coach is in England!!
Secondly: The question has been raised if we are not to hard on De Villiers. Should we not also allow him 18 months to settle as we did with Jake White? The answer is an emphatic NO!!! White took over the reigns from Rudolf Strauli after a disastrous 2003 campaign which not only saw the Boks loosing badly in the Tri-Nations but also embarrassed rugby in this country through Camp Staaldraad. Not to mention the Geo Cronje/Quintin Davids debacle.
White had to start fresh, build a new squad and in doing so won the Tri Nations and the World Cup. De Villiers, on the other hand, inherited a World Cup winning team. Riding the wave of success. John Smit stated that its not only about winning the Tri Nations its about finally earning the respect of New Zealand and Australia after not playing them RWC 2007. Everybody wanted to play the Boks. And they wanted to win. Winning the Tri Nations would have sealed our position as the top rugby nation in the world. We had everything going for us!!! But as always in this country ego’s got in the way. To answer the initial question: NO De Villiers does not qualify for a 18 month grace period. He has no game plan for Test Rugby and he certainly does not have the buy-in from the players. This brings me to point number three.
The players do not believe in his game plan. De Villiers said he watched the video of the last game and believes that they were the better team on the day!!! What
load of rubbish. Is this man smoking something or what? Maybe he watched the Dunedin test!! The players through their handling and attacking (or lack thereof) clearly showed that they were uncomfortable with this new game plan. They doubt themselves and they doubt each other. They can’t keep the ball. David Campese stated that you need to play the ball. The Boks did nothing of the sort. CJ head-butted the scrumhalf and was lucky not to be red-carded. They are making elementary mistakes.
The Boks should have sealed the Tri Nation before they returned from Australasia. Now we get the Wooden Spoon. Australia will win the Tri Nations and they will definitely win the 2011 RWC. And by the way Mr De Villiers they have a new coach with a game plan that works!!! I hope New Zealand win but I don’t think that’s going to happen. Australia will seal the Tri Nations this weekend at Coca Cola Park in Johannesburg. I hope I’m wrong. I hope the changing in the name does
not also mean that we lost our fortress!!!
- Willie van Zyl
It’s the first time I have walked out of a room, no longer interested in watching the Springboks play rugby, without seeing the game through to the end.
- Rich Hindle
It has become apparent that DV does not have the correct credentials to be coach of the Boks, or indeed any other international rugby side.
One could argue though, if we the public have given him enough time to settle in? I for one do not know the answer as I am no coach and have never professed to be one.
That said, there is lots of money in rugby and this is where we as the public can have an influence on the outcome. Whether it be unhappiness about the coach or selections, we the paying public can influence the outcomes.
What would happen if most of the rugby public just decided not to attend any rugby games? I do not only mean Internationals, but Currie Cup fixtures as
well.
No public support, no big salaries etc. Yes rugby players would suffer but lets be honest, most of the players are suffering due to affirmative action anyway.
- Brett Williams
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Springbok Coach is not on the job training position, you don’t appoint a fresh graduate to run Microsoft. WHY OH WHY HOSKINS???? Put your personal agenda in your pocket you stupid little man PDV go finish up your apprenticeship do the hard yards and give it a bash at Vodacom level. BUT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD STOP CONFUSING THE WORLD CHAMPIONS!!!
- Stephan Spohr
To Belinda Hill..
You are quite correct we don’t have to deal with affirmative action for the AB’s as most of our players are black or coloured already and the Aussies are moving in that direction too..Time for SA to catch up..again.!!
- Greg Shanaghan (AB supporter and admirer of our greatest
foe.SA)
I believe that SA Rugby needs to go back to basics. Lets 1st get and keep possession of the ball, that means doing the hard yards, clearing out at rucks on our ball and opponents ball as they are getting far too much clean ball (We gave away over 30 possessions in the last 2 games), retain the ball in the tackle and overall handling of the rugby ball.
Once we master these skills again, then we could maybe look at playing a little more expansive, bearing in mind that playing an expansive game does not mean that you do not have a game plan, ie 2 phases out wide, 3rd phase run back to support and not get isolated, but then again if there is support have another go out wide, but this carry on going wide until there is no-one else or you get tackled without a support players nearby is a waste of possession and is futile.
- Mark Lawson
Let's give the man a chance - I am a firm believer in "if you stick to your guns" results will
show - I am willing to give him a year!
- Don van Vuuren (Serious springbok supporter)
I am a Peter De Villiers supporter. His biggest problem , how ever is the nonsence around Victor Matfield's return to S.A.. Victor should have stayed in France. He simply does not have the charisma required to be a successfull Springbok captain, and his perfomance is deteriorating as a result of the rest of the squad's lack of respect. The sooner he gets rid of Matfield, and of course Luke Watson, the sooner the team will fuction as a whole again.
We won the match against the AB's during the time Matfield was off the flield! Coincidence?
I don't think so. Matfield is too much of a prima donna, arguing with the ref, to be "seen", rather than motivate his team mates to ignore the percieved injustice by the ref, and to show the world why we are the best (supposedly) team in the world.
Further he is a one track minded player, who cannot decide for himself,
and the team, on the field, when the game plan does not work. And he is scared of the other senior players in the team to really lay into them when they under perform. Or is it that because he is under performing himself, that he does not realise that the players around him, plays as individuals, rather than a team?
Have another look at the last two games, and see how many times players want to be shining on their own, instead of being part of a team. Adi Jacobs is 100% correct when he said that certain players are just not interested in playing as a team.
Luke Watson, in my opinion, is a qwota player, forced upon De Villiers as part of his appointment as Springbok coach. Peter, as I said up front, I am supporting you all the way, but please, you promised to only select the best available players. Luke Watson the best? Due to politics, yes. On performance? NO!
Please Peter, make us proud of our team again. A few minor replacements, like Danie Rossouw in for
Matfield, Wikus Van Heerden in for Pierre Spies, and what about making him captain? And finally, please find a replacement for Butch James. Even a mediocre under 16 highschool flyhalf will out perform him these days!
- Tienie Wolmarans
Playing an expansive style of rugby is almost like a batsmen in cricket going to the crease, no matter what the condition of the surface, movement of the ball or type of bowler and trying to slog every ball out of the stadium. Yes, it's what the crowd want to see and in theory, if a batsmen can pull it off then you have a chance of making a great score but first of all you would need a whole team of Lance Kluseners and secondly, every ball would have to be perfectly placed, all of which is...well...impossible. The style of rugby played surely has to match the conditions of the game at that point in time? Everyone knows that except Peter de Villiers! What are his credentials again?
- Matthew
Nash
I don't care if SARUGBY appoints God almighty to coach the boks for the next 4 years. I have had enough of them and their politics and stupidity and I won't support the Boks or SARUGBY ever again.
They think nothing of risking our national team or reducing us to a laughing stock across the world. They do not consider the public when making thier decisions, they do not consider the players or the team, and they most certainly have not considered PDV in their calculations.
If they had, they would have thought better of appointing him to this position without the relevant experience. Imagine how he must feel, because I can guarantee you he wants to win as much any of the supporters and I actually feel sorry for him. SARUGBY should be ashamed of themselves, we all see them for what they are, self serving inconsiderate unpatriotic morons. The rugby loving public have been betrayed by SARUGBY once again.
Thank
you SARUGBY. You have ruined it for everyone now, I hope you are happy.
- Marc Moon, England fan
I am not knowledgeable enough to be able to say that the ELV's are bad for the game, But I love statistics (not of the lies, damn lies, statistics variety).
Looking at the Curry Cup competition in SA one can accept that WP and the Sharks leans more towards being ELV promotors whilst the Bulls and the Lions are traditionalists who has changed very little in their game plans although they seem to have these expansive monents.
It does seem as if the Bulls and Lions are more successful. The Sharks do win but have been flattered by the score line sometimes. I believe that some of their matches such as the one against the WP was closer than the score-line indicates.
The Bulls score more tries than their opponents and concede fewer. I am vague about the Lion's statistics, but in the matches I saw, including the one
against the Bulls, the were more dangerous with a less flamboyant attack (excluding the brilliant try from Jaco Pretorius). Their play was structured and the beat the Bulls at their on style because they finished better and because of that one moment of sheer brilliance by Jaco. In their next game against the Cheetahs, the Lions played a much more expansive game a la P de V, and paid the price in a defeat because the Cheetahs were better at it.
I am still not sure of the Cheetahs are playing as advocated by PdeV (and denigrated by Eddie Jones). It seems to me that their moves are structured but very well executed and not very expansive.
I believe that the teams such as the Bulls and the Lions are faring better because the players followed well-rehearsed moves with a structured game plan which the less mentally brilliant players can also understand. To expect that every player must now become brilliant footballers as Danie Craven had them, such
as Mannetjies Roux, Danie Gerber, Doug Hopwood and Naas botha, is impossible. Then you end up with the disaster where a centre lobs a ball to the opposing hooker waiting patiently for a ball 5 meters from the Boks tryline.
Maybe the answer will be "structuring" the expansive moves to plan player brilliance (sounds silly, eh?) but to nurture powerplay by the forwards: use slightly faster players but make sure that they arrive quicker at the loose ball without being in the way of expanding players.
There you have it. I am not convinced that ELV's are making the game better, but the teams overdoing expansive plays, are losing teams.
- Dion Roder
Reading the right of reply of all my fellow Bok supporters today 28 Aug 08, has really got me thinking about what we must do to "alleviate" ourselves & our beloved Bok team, from the iron fisted rule of SARU and SA Rugby Ltd. It got me thinking about politics (believe it or not) and the
power of the people, or in this case, the supporters.
What we should really be doing is making a stand against "The Powers that Be" to show that we, the paying public and adoring die hard supporter, are not happy about the situation we are facing, and we are prepared to express this in a way that best allows us to. I think to say that we are disappointed in our team and coach is an understatement and that is well reflected in the papers, web-sites and international press.
Therefore my suggestion is this: Stop the talk, stop the complaining and moaning and do something about it! Talk really is cheap! We the supporters have the power to change it by no longer tuning our Mnet boxes into Saturday’s game, stop attending the games and stop buying the merchandise. Essentially...stop the cash flow and empty the stands!
When the money dries up, heads will certainly roll.
How long will it take us supporters to realize that we are in fact in charge? If everybody on
these pages really feels that strongly about the situation as they say they do, then do something about it!
I for one will make my personal stand and no longer by merchandise, not attend anymore games and will certainly not tune in my Mnet box for Saturday’s game, but that’s just me. Let’s see how strong you all feel about it, or as usual, is it just a load of hot air!
- Andrew Smith
At international level you cannot and I reiterate you cannot run at you opposition from anywhere and at any time. The game is faster, defence patterns are much tighter as the media makes it possible for us to check out our oppositions strengths and plan accordingly. SA has a big, strong and mobile pack of forwards. We can scrum, we are tops in the lineout department. These set pieces should be used as a platform from which to launch set moves to punch holes in the defence of the opposition. When the line of defence is broken we can then play wide. Our
Problem is the decision making and execusion in this phase of play. Here the boks are to lateral in support (when there is support) causing passes to go astray. What has happened to the basics of supporting in depth, so as to run off the ball and in so doing executing better lines if running (attacking space) and supporting to the ball. (when I have passed the ball I should endeavour to get into a better position to receive the ball again). Then senior players in the squad should stand up and be counted. They are on borrowed time, the world cup is over and you are only as good as your last game. Div has one other problem in my view, the indiscriminate use of his bench. Substitute according to what is happening on the field, not your predetermined plan.
I am a very loyal and big bok supporter, and their performances of late are actually staring to effect my psyche in a very negative manner. We have some of the best players in the world that look very ordinary on the park.
- Calla Niemand
