SARrugby.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vimV7NsFwtM&feature=related

A few points to note:

1) Jordaan's pace as he gets put in the outside gap. This kid has the wheels and he knows how to play centre....of the youngsters, clearly the one to watch.

2) Patrick Lambie's most important non kicking contribution was missing the pass from McCleod that could have drawn the game. There were no highlights of him breaking.....because there weren't any. He played just like Scotland....but Meyer wasn't there to blame.

3) Check out the two scrums at minute 25 and especially at minute 42 as the Beast destroys Kitshoff. And this is the kid Dave and Mike wanted to play against the Poms.

4)  Katrikilis's left foot drop.....any kid that vcan do that in the pressure of a final is worth hanging onto. 

5) And then....watch again de Jongh's try ....the angle of his run, how he cuts to beat Coetzee, his strength in handing off Daniels and the Shane Williams step that takes him past Mvovo . Crisp.

Back on Lambie, I appreciate the fact that he is playing it tight. That's smart but I also agree with Meyer, it's time for him to show us a bit more.

Mozart

To base arguments on a fe excerpys from the game is not really a sound basis for making statements.   Elsewhere you implied that Lambie played exactly the same  type of game that he played against the Irish and Scottish.

Even the excerpys showed that he did not kick the ball once - but in the excerpts there ws not onece that Lambie kicked and did not pass the ball.   In fact even in the excepts he was satnding much flatter than he did in the Irish and Scottish tests.   There is no way that Meyer did not INSTRUCT Lambie how to play the two tests mentioned - and that he now instructed him differently.

The excerpts showed only the highlights nothing more.   Glad that you did have a look at it - since you previously said that Jordaan made no lin break in the CC final.   Also ote that in that line break Pietersen was tackled by Habana and De Jongh was nowhere on defence.   

Talking about De Jongh - it was a good try scored by him from a set piece and planned move.    Pity he showed zilch when he played in the Scottish test and nothing in the rest of the CC competition and Super Series.   If there is any attempted attacking backline play on Saturday - it will die with De Jongh - with a 50:50 chance of turnovers in possession. 

Gosh Mike, let me help. Firstly the highlight reel is not random bits of play.....it's comprised of the bits that count.....that resulted in points. And answering your points:

1) They usually don't show kicks on a highlight reel, unless they result in something. Your position comment is piffle, Lambie is not attacking the advantage line. He played this very much like the Scottish test.

2) De Jongh was playing well inside on that break, he wasn't lined up on Jordaan....if anybody was, it was Habana.

3) Actually in the Scottish test de Jongh got the ball 3 times and broke once. Taute has had the ball about twenty times....and never made a clean break....I prefer Juan's ratio.

4) I notice you say nothing about the total destruction of your pick Kitshoff. Well maybe that's all for the best.

This is priceless, we have all of 5min of highlights and Moffie tells us that Lambie played it like he did against Scotland.

Thanks for the footage Moffie, for it shows Lambie running it, setting up that Jordaan outside break which had wing written all over it. There is no doubting this kids class, my question has always been about his size at centre - time will tell.

The only time Kitshoff struggled was that first scrum and thats because he slipped. But then again you are far too pig headed to take perspective into account, for as I mentioned, the WP pack was never going to be a match for the Sharks given they had Skara at hooker, all of 96kg's of him and the worthless stringbean de Kock Steenkamp at lock. You will never have seen that WP pack struggle that way had Liebenberg been at 2 and Bekker at 5......but you are too stupid to acknowledge that, just like you wont acknowledge that Taute made mini breaks against Oz, while de Jongh made one mini break against nobodies Scotland

Oh sure, let's look for those Taute mini breaks against Oz:

Looking, looking. I see Kirchner got one CB (clean break)....yes and Jean got one. Hmmm Habana got 4, nice!

 Now Taute.....looking, looking.....nope no matter how long I stare at it his breaks remain zero.

Seems his breaks were just too "mini" to register. How stupid of me er you....bwahahahaha. Dumbass!

Mozart

I have never disagreed with you about the Taute issue - matter of fact I have been very clear about the issue and has been one of the earlier posters who said that Taute performed better at full back for the Lions than he did at center - that was before his preference statement.

What I did say was that I do believe that Lambie was playing to Meyer's instructions in th Irish and Scottish tests - all indications are that he did.   First of all he always in previous games played much flatter than he did in the two mentioned tests.   Although he preferred a passing game and he normally also attacks the gain line during virtually all games he played in - he never once did it in the two tests    However, most emphatic is Meyer's own statements:-

*     Meyer's comments on deficiencies in Lambie's kicking and that he recently meet with his requirements - not a word any other facet of Lambie's play.

*     Let me quote Meyer's own comment as follows:-

          ‘But I’ve had a long one on one with him and told him to play his natural game. He has always been a guy that takes on the line and plays really flat. He played too deep in Dublin and Edinburgh. I’ve said to him I want more on attack, :"

*     Meyer would have had his "long talk" with Lambie after the Irish test if he was unhappy about the way Lambie played in that test - he would not have waited till after the Scottish test  (played according to the same format as was the case in the Irish test) to raise the issue with Lambie.

You queried the natural game issue on the part of Lambie - yet even Meyer's remarks indicated that he has a different natural game than he displayed in the tests mentioned.   Meyer must have realized that the kicking game and deep in the pocket game (the Morne Steyn style of play) did not work in the two tests mentioned.   It is also a escape route for Meyer - should the test be lost - Meyer can always blame the different playings style as the reason for the loss.

The main reason why the strategy would not work - can be summariized in one name - De Jongh.   His one and virtually only shining moment in rugby over the last year was the try scored by him in the CC final.   For the rest he did zilch - same as what happened in the Scottish test.   That one line break gaining 5 meters over the gain line - ended in nothing, but  is now being written up as a real miracle performance.    Aside from his iffy attacking ability - De Jongh also have a tendency to knock on balls and a drawback insofar as a deficient passing fame is concerned.

We haven't lost the test yet, but you and Dave are already blaming de Jongh for the loss? Talk about defeatist attitudes!

I'm curious Mike, who would you play at 13, given the squad?

MOz I think the problem here is that Mike and snapster are believing their own hype and misreadings of situations. Meyer is a rotten coach and a liar now to boot it seems. A conniving sort playing mind games with Lambie and shifting the blame etc. The minds boggles at such insinuations!!

I noted this Super 15 season more than once that Lambie had been very quiet at 15 for the sharks. He was not pressing for Bok inclusion against a pretty average Kirchner. I suggested that flyhalf was his better position - all met with strong denials by snapster. However he moved to flyhalf and immediately started to play better. The point being that Lambie can go quiet.

Then he starts in a test against Ireland. His first start at flyhalf. Defences are tight and Lambie does not want to make a mistake. He plays well in the first half against Scotland while the pack was domianting and was quieter in the second half. He does not try too much, he is cautious.

Meyer sees the guy is being a bit too cautious lying deep etc and encourages him to play a more attacking game. Meyer may not have mentioned this after the Ireland game as it was LAmbies first starting test at flyhalf and he would of course need time to settle down down. After the Scots test Meyer judges it time to encourage Pat to use his attacking talents more.

Now all this is so obvious. Trouble once you have dismissed Meyers ability to select a team, coach a team and think him a fool like ou snapster does then obviously a  statement like this by Meyer has to have a negative spin put on it to save face.Bwahahahahhahahaha 

To make matters even worse for Mike and Snapster and all their doom and gloom talk  this Bok side, exhausted and depleted as it is, has won two tests thus far and could win the third as well - we shall see.  

Mozart

I relly have no answer here about the selection of any player at 13.   Meyer fouled up in his original squad selection and in fact included Tauite as a full back - wih virtually his only center combination being De Villiers and De Jongh.    There was in the original squad selection no allowance whatsoever for the playing of any other combination.

When it came to the Irish test for some reason or another Meyer veered from his original choice and instead of playing De Jongh at 13 - he played Taute.   That change from the original squad selection of Taute  as a full back clearly did not work out - and in the Scottish test he went to the De Villiers - De Jongh combination - the selffsame combination that contributed in a major way to the poor backline performances in Super 15 by the Stormes backline.

The latter combination really did not work in the Scottish test as well.    Some people blame Lambie and De Villiers for the deficiencies in both games - others also include Taute and De Jongh into the problem scenario.   In retrospect  I think that Meyer's original squad selection was the major problem that is coming back to haunt him.   He included a number of players he never really intended to use in the squad - instead of providing cover for the center combination - should things not work out.

Be it as it may - Meyer has left himself no alternative but to play the center combination of De Villiers and De Jongh in the test on Saturday.    I also think that there is NO other possibility - but to use De Jongh at 13.   I said all along that was a poor choice - since he did not show anything much during the past year and in fact showed certain negative tendencies in the games he played in throughout the year.   Those included  -

  *    a tendency to knock on balls in contact situations;

  *    being in reality ineffective to attack the gain line himself;

  *    being easily tackled  by the opposing players;

  *    not protecting the ball in tackle situations - thus losing the ball in mauls or giving penalties away;

  *    having a quetionalble passing game  and an inability to off-load balls effectively in tackle situations.

One or more of the above happened in every  game he played in this year - often enough repeatedly..   Giving him space in games - like happened in the Melbourne Rebels game and the CC Final is dangerous - but for him to create space is an impossibility.    However in most games he was ineffective and average to poor in a actual performance.    His better attributes include open-field defence - but that is not the core of discussion here.   It goes about the instruction of Meyer to Lambie to make sure that the backline play more attacking rugby.

Saffex's main argument relates to size - fact is I believe that size can be off-set by clever play and a better reading of the game and  by effective usage of a wider vision contributing to an effective passing and off-loading situation.    However, there can be no argument that part of the limitations  as mentioned above - can be blamed on his size - since he lacks in capacity to use other mechanisms effectively to off-set the size problem.

I did not say I am blaming De Jongh for potential losing of the test - what I did emphasize is that he would be a negative factor in the attacking game Meyer now wants Lambie to play.   My view on losing the game goes much wider than De Jongh.   I have said all along that we have an advantage or is on par iwith the POMS n five positions amongst the forwards and a serious disadvantage  in especially two.   The latter centers around Steenkamp and Kruger.   You have to have a full 8 man pack to get an advantage - and that is seriously absent in this case.

The backline has been largely disfunctional throughout the year and has in fact being weakened substantially on this tour.   The two  issues mentioned are the min reasons why I say we do not have much of a chance in the game on Saturday.       . 

Beeno

I challenge you to find any place where I said that Meyer is a rotten coach.   What i did say is his selection of players can be questioned.   It is alsonot clear what Meyer's real game plan is - but what is clear is that if he has a more expansive game in mind - his player selection does reduce the possibility of implementation of the plan.

I still maintain that Meyer if he really wants to introduce a more effective team - will have to analyze and evaluate the players taking part in Super 15 next year and base his selections on proven performances throughout that series - not on individual flash in the pan situations.   If he does that - and I hope he does - the Springboks would be a future force in world rugby.   If he select players without regard to performances - we might as well write him off as a coach. 

As to the game on Saturday - I believe sincerely what I wrote earlier on the issue.   I take into account two issues - namely the  realization that many players were lost due to injury problems - and the limitations Meyer imposed on himself by selecting a squad comprising a number of players he never really intended to use in the tests series.   This was especially true in backline selections.      

Well your stupid stats dont include mini breaks do they - mini break in my books is beating the first defender, which Taute did about 4 times against Oz, with a step or swerve.

Given the squad, there are only two options for 13 and they are Taute and JP

de Jongh is going to be horribly exposed against England and more so if he plays against NZ and Oz next year

Well there's a classic the Swami thinks de Jongh is going to be horribly exposed against England.....but still be selected against Oz and NZ next year.....ergo, he is hedging his bets. You have to love these guys!

Moffie catch a wake up, I dont select the side, Meyer does and the man has hardly showed an eye for selection. If de Jongh fails today as he will, good old Meyer will probably still select him next year to take on the AB's and Oz, thats how stupid he is.

Now if only I was selecting the side...............we would certainly not be struggling to beat Scotland and Ireland - and no way in hell would I be instructing by 9 & 10 to kick possession away aimlessly as we do.

The man is clueless and on the road to nowhere. Todays Bok side sells us short - at 1, 5 and centre in particular

Saffex

Come now - you aew disturbing may peaceful Saturday moning with your latest statement.   I bet you the backline will look something like the following:-

15   Lambie

14   Mvovo

13   Pietersen

12   Taute

11   Rhule

10   Jantjies

 9    Hougaard

You would pick a player completely out of form at 9. an absolute useless 10 and Pietersen out of position - where he did zilch earlier this year in Super 13.   Taute at 12 - when he prefers ro play ar 15.

The whole backline would have been totally disfunctional with no plan whatsoever.   So there goes our chances down the drrain - or that wouuld have happened if you picked the backline.

I am with you in respect of Steenkamp and Kruger - but that backline would have been a disaster.

Please - kindly accept that -

  *    Pietersen's trial by Plumtree at 13 was NOT successful and that he is a top wing and a very average 13;

  *    Janjies is not Springbok material and I am not even sure whether he would make the grade ay Super Series level -  will have to see whether the Stormers does ot send him back to the Lions halfway through the series; and

  *    That Taute prefer to play at 15 - and as he stated he would have more opportunities to really show what he can produce - and not because he is afraid he would not get opportunities at 13 when playing for the Stormers.

Selection of players out of posirion or where they prefer to play - is normally the most certain gurantee for under-performance on their part.

Mozart

Of one thing I am 100% certain and that is that De Jongh will fail today - I only hope he does in the process not contrirbute to the loss by the Springboks.