SARrugby.com

An interesting Super 15 series is coming up and it will afford us to review player performances and perhaps change our view on certain players.   Siome of us has not seen enough about players to form concrete perceptions on - some are so prejudiced for and against players and nothing will change their minds about them - others harken back to the past and see nothinh good in younger players,

I have made three lists of 5 players each - whom I -

*   favour and like to see how they perform.

*   Good players who buggered up in 2012 and must regaim their staturel and

*   Players I give low ratings to

Favoured Players   

Goosen

Taute (at full back)

Jordaan

Du Toit

Coetzee

Players who Under-performed in 2012

Francois Steyn

Hougaard

Jean De Villiers

Spies

Van der Merwe (Flippie)

Players I don't rate at all

De Jongh

Jantjies

Potgieter

Morne Steyn

Brussouw

The trick is to objectively asses their performances based on actual merit and see whom of them should affectively qualify for selection to the Springbok team.   Real objectivity must be the nrom - not prejudice or blinkered viewing.

Any other suggestions please.

Mike all I have to do is look at your categories to know you are never going to change your mind. Hell you were still denigrating de Jongh after he had sunk your Sharks to win the CC. There's no denying his brilliant try decided that game.

You rate Coetzee, but he was dropped to the Bok bench. Francois louw completely reversed our fortunes when he came in for coetzee.....but you don't rate him.

You think de Villiers under performed but he was our most consistent back and statistically by far our best centre.

You rate Taute at fullback but he never played a minute at fullback in a test?

How in heavens name are you going to change your views on players?

Mozart

You really are unfair in what you wrote above.   I have an open mind about the players mentioned and can change my mind about them,   I selected them based on their Super 15 and test performances in 2012 and has to add the following comments:-

*   Coetzee was the top loosie in 2012 and rated as such by the New Zealand commentators as well.   He is still very young - and can get better.   The fact that he played from the bench for the Springboks is no disgrace - even though you may think so.   He has scope for improvment - but can also go down if he does not perform.

*   De Villiers was the best Springbok center in 2012 - but that is saying nothing much,   The others were worse than him - he was barely average.   He was also part of the "dead" Stormers backline last year and was really not at all good enough.   There is massive scope for improvement in his performance.

*   De Jongh was the worst no 13 in SA for two years running and was a part of the "dead" backline of the Stormers in 2012,   Then suddenly out of the Blue he scored a try for the Stormers in the CC final  and is selected as a Springbok center and played there for 2 games.   Both were extremely disappointing performances - the one in Londonj the worst performance imaginable for a center on any level in the game.   There is no way that a center above club level can be worse than he is on a constant basis and he can only improve insofar as performances are concerned.   The idea is to see whether there is anything in his performances that can imprive to such an extent that I change my mind insofar as he is concerned.   The key is to make sure that the assessment is fair and reasonable and based on continuous performances.   If he makes the grade good luck to him     

Francois Louw is not playing in Super 15 and there is no way that he can  be rated in that competititon.  

Mike the only way this works is to give credit when credit is due. De Jongh deserved praise after the CC final, but his test performances after that never followed through. Taute was good defensively against Oz, but absolutely atrocious against NZ.

I don't get why that's so hard to say. Does it some how reduce one's status as a rugby analyst? There are players I think are test contributors.....that move the game forward. But if they play poorly, no amount of dissembling will change that.

On the other hand, there is no need to buy into the hype.....eg that Luke Watson was great, or that Skinstad was just a show pony. This kind of thing is put out there all the time. Examples are: Watson, Hougaard at scrumhalf, Pienaar as flyhalf, Russell as flyhalf, Daniel as a test player, Werner Kruger, Greyling, Deon Carstens as test props, Jantjies as a test player, Flip Flop, Jacques Potgieter.....etc, etc.

Massive hype surrounded all this stuff. But to clear thinkers who observed these players in tight games, their failure at test level was predictable.

But even in these cases one has to maintain flexibility. If Hougaard solves his step and pass problems and uses his brain more effectively, he could become a test scrummie. I'm just not betting on it.....and the golden rule is.....it has to  be demonstrated on the field of play.

Mozart

My problem is that De Jongh for two years was consistently poor amd then he scored a good try - but should that remove automaticlly his poor performances over a long period?   That was followed by another 2 poor games.   I said clearly that I believe that I would rate him fairly and if he shows over a number of games that he is in form and good enough - I certainly will give him credit for that.

Not that I have much hope of that - but there is always a possibilty tha he can improve.   Same with Hougaard as you mentioned above.

There is one issue that stand out insofar as I am concerned - and that is fair analysis of good performances over a protracted period - one game flash in the pan is just not good enough,

Hype and nothing else got Jantjies and Taute into contention - Taute in a position where he barely played for two years and then he failed in that position.   Saffex goes ballistic when anybody says he failed - but his record indicates that he is an exceptionally good full back and he should play where he himself said he wants to play.

Couldn't agree more. Consistent contributions are what defines the Springbok. But we must have more honest, more fact based evaluations of each game on this site. There is simply too much blue sky stuff. Ninety percent of the young Bok hopefuls never make it. Recognizing fatal flaws early is what the competent coaches do. Arm chair coaches need similar sensitivity if their ideas are going to be realistic.

Mozart

The shifting out process should be on -

*   Vodacom Cup level in the first instance;

*   CC level in the second instance;

*   Super 15 level in the first instance

Some of the exceptional youngsters coming from Under 20 may skip altogether the first two levels and start playing senior rugby at Super 15 level.   Etzebeth for instance played Super Rugby and for the Springboks before he had a single CC game to his credit.   same can be said of Marcell Coetzee.   However, those are rae  exceptions.

Players from the Junior level often enough skips level 1 and end up playing CC games.   This is in fact the highest level many of the youngsters would ever advance to and more or less 50% of the players mentioned by Saffex would fail to advance any further than this level.

If they perform exceptionally well on CC level - the other 50% could potentially reach Super 15 level.   This is the real testing ground for ultimate selection at Springbok level and I am afraid that in respect of te 50% figure advancing to this level between 60 and 70% reach this level as the highest they can progress to in their rugby careers.   In other words the ultimate success rate of Youngsters coming through from Junior rugby wouldbe between 10 and 20%  of the total numbers starting on lower level.

Yes we need a reliable scorecard to determine success on the different levels - so as to avoid making assessment based on no foundations at all.   My first positions I would assess on that basis would be the center position where we have continuous problems - but other positions should be dealt with similarly.   Incidentally Sharkbok made some very interesting comments on that issue - but I would like to hear what saffex thinks before making a realistic assessment of the centers at present in the team.

You will notice that most of the existing Springboks have not been put ofn the list of 15 players mentioned by me earlier.   I left out in the main players that has performed well in 2012 and only looked at those with question marks as to their performances.    

Mike one can simplify all this. If a young player is dominating consistently at Super 15 level he is ready for bok selection. Good Super 15 matches are very close to test level.

I think that is becoming very difficult for players of players of 21 or even 22 to break into test rugby. You have players available in their peak years with experience. Of course there are exceptions so there can be no absolute rule.

I would be nice if each poster had a weighting so one could see whose opinion counts and for how much. Beeno at 10 for example (NOT Beeno10 lest any wise guy should want to get it wrong) and rooitwit and snapster at obviously 1? Then all one would need is an excel function and one could sort the posts and ignore any post with a status of  below say 6 - if one chose.  Some of us like to mentor the 1 rated posters and try and lift them to their full potential as 2s. One must  always plough back something.