Fire the selectors
13 Nov 2006
Keo, in his Business Day column writes that the Bok team needs decent selectors and not two Jake White yes men.
The only victory the Springbok coaching staff could claim after Dublin was one of a lesson learnt.
But there was too little to suggest that another record-breaking defeat had changed the opinion of the head coach that he is getting selections wrong.
In reality, there were no lessons learnt in Dublin. That is why Springbok rugby is in trouble this morning. That is why there has to be an inquisition into the Dublin debacle and not just an acceptance that this was an experimental team that took a beating against a settled home side.
The record defeat was humiliating but even worse was the refusal afterwards to acknowledge why it all went wrong.
White conceded that Bryan Habana and Jean de Villiers are not a Test midfield combination but he would not concede that he erred with his loose forward combination, his tight five selections and his continued use of a one-dimensional defensive system.
White blamed players for not being able to implement the Bok “blitz defence†that has now leaked four tries on average in away Tests this season. What he could not explain was why he was still picking these players.
White refused to recognise he had got it wrong by picking three ball-carrying loose forwards, all with similar attributes but none with the ability to play an open-side role, win turnover ball and, most importantly, slow down opposition ball.
No hindsight was needed to know this selection was wrong. When the Bok coach and his selectors, Ian McIntosh and Peter Jooste, picked this tour squad, all the leading coaches in SA questioned the lack of balance among the looseforwards.
Critics asked how a Bok team could compete in the northern hemisphere armed only with bulk and height but with no expertise in playing to the ball.
White and his selectors must be held accountable because those who played will be held accountable for a performance that, defensively, was even worse than that in Brisbane this year when the Boks lost 49-0 to Australia.
These players did not pick themselves. They did not decide the defensive system or plan of attack. That was the coaching staff and so coaching staff must be judged for their faith in a bunch of players ill-equipped to compete.
The Boks missed 30 tackles against a team that was forced to make just 51. The Boks lost the rucks 55-17. There are statistics and then there are damning statistics. But even the ruck count imbalance could not be as damning as White’s stubborn refusal to admit the obsession with size and height is a coaching philosophy failure, as is the lack of progress the Bok pack has made in rucking and counter-rucking in northern hemisphere conditions.
In 2004, White and company got it wrong against Ireland and England. Two years later they are still getting it wrong. Why will it be any different in France next year? The decision makers have not changed this year and neither have the team’s results.
White feels he’s right and the rest of SA is wrong. Six Test defeats in eight starts, many by record scores, tell you one person — not the masses — is out of step.
Defending the defeat, White said he would love to go to Europe with his best team. Well, he did in 2004 and the result was no different to Dublin on Saturday. Technically, the Bok forwards were exposed. They had limited rucking skills, absolutely no counter-rucking ability and the pack as a unit did not dominate.
The selection of five line-out options yielded nothing. Ireland threw the ball in 16 times but never lost a ball through contesting Bok brilliance.
Although the Boks have regressed in two years, White will not be fired because it is not a financial option.
So what is the solution?
Fire White’s fellow selectors and find the brains that can bring common sense to selections. This is an option and a necessity.
If the coach cannot admit to his own failings, get selectors strong enough to force change. Failure to do so will result in more record failures.
Saturday’s result hurt SA’s rugby but the coach’s denials were even more damaging.
789 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] Show All
14 Nov 2006, 10:31 am
Supa
I just feel that Jake made Schalk into a superman loose forward expecting him to do the work of two men, which he did. So he plays fetcher role as well as destructive ball; carrier and not to mention the insane cover defence. Too much was placed on this young man’s shoulders, and guess what? They couldnt handle it anymore. I blame Bok management for his injury. Anyways, back to my point. If one thinks of what he brings to the game: intensity and physicality like no other, surely he should be in the ball carrying role runing amongst the backs and supporting at the rucks (which is an asset of his play already) tying up defenders. In other words I like the idea of Schalk running off the pop passes of guys like Floors and Watson or Kuun. Thus, for the stormers next year I would imagine Watson at 6, Schalk at 7, and Joe at 8. Injuries permitting of course.
14 Nov 2006, 10:33 am
ex
Joe wil have to prove himself to me first:
Id pick:
6.Schalk
7.Watson
8.Diack
Joe can come of the bence at first. Diack did very well in the ccup – i hope he makes the step up. I was impressed with his positional play. Every time someone kicks – he is either there to catch or to support.
14 Nov 2006, 10:35 am
ex
Ek voel nogal jammer vir die ou – hy gee nooit op nie, maar hy moet dalk maar realiteit face. Hy was uitstekend in ’95 – hy het daai Engels en Iere moeg gehardloop!
14 Nov 2006, 10:35 am
Sups
I would turn it around. I think Smiothg is a better 8 than a 7, and Spies is a better 7 than an 8.
So:
6. Schalk
7. Spies
8. Smith
Yes, Kabamba would be a phenomenal super sub in the last twenty.
.
But in a perfect world, mine of course
I would have:
6. Watson
7. Schalk
8, Smith
With Floors and Spies coming on for Watson and Smith respectively in the last twenty running lumbering Englishman ragged at next year’s world cup.
14 Nov 2006, 10:36 am
Supa
Diack would have made a difference on this tour, thats for damn sure. you dont get massive and mobile guys at 8th man that often.
14 Nov 2006, 10:36 am
supa – you forgetting lobberts. i really hope that he has a good game if picked against england. apart from his sometimes ill discipline i really rate him. smith for me has lost form, the same with joe. schalk, spies and lobberts/floors/ watson is a good combination imo
14 Nov 2006, 10:39 am
Supa, thats true.
Diack is the first person I know of, who played a CC match with the flu, play to 5 min. past half time, and still be man of the match. He is still 20, so I really hope he can step up.
14 Nov 2006, 10:40 am
746
Some are waffle like Rugbystudent when he pick his hourly teams.
14 Nov 2006, 10:40 am
Spies can do really well at 8 – at the moment he is just struggling behind a losing pack – he needs to play well when the pack struggles as well, but he still has a lot to learn. I saw something of him at 8 against the sharks which showed me he can be brilaint at 8. He picked up the ball and bumped of Britz like nothing, kept two other players busy and offloaded – it lead to a try eventually.
14 Nov 2006, 10:41 am
sa can’t complain about the shortage of loosies that’s for sure we’re spoilt. just to get the right balance is all that it takes to have a succesfull loose trio.
14 Nov 2006, 10:42 am
Supa, after Lomu’s operation, he had to learn to walk from scrath. He was like a baby, and it is amazing to have the fightinh spirit he have, because doctors thought he would’nt be able to jog ever again, and 3 years down the line he plays rugby.
14 Nov 2006, 10:42 am
Dieselboys
I totally agree with you about Smith and Spies. Although I believe Spies can become a brilliant 8 in time. The problem is he’s so inexperienced at senior level in any position that to entrust him with the 8th man position which is highly specialised and needs decision making ability is plain stupid. Smith is a mature player with the experience to make those instinctive decisions that are needed at 8.
Besides, Jake has enough options for 8. Cronje, Smith, AJ and Big Joe whilst virtually none for 6 if he insists in persisting with a big, fast ballcarrier.
14 Nov 2006, 10:43 am
Sups
I guess 8 and 7 are very interchangeable positions. I definately dont think a team loses anything with Spies at 8, but one needs to maximise the potential of each man in a certain position. Im just a big fan of the Dallaglio, Back, Hill combination. Also, I guess we are just blessed in this country with so much talent at looseforward.
14 Nov 2006, 10:44 am
Diesel
Thats my point – Stormers played Watson at 6. Schalk at 7 and Joe at 8 and they werent effective! The only player that sort of shone was Watson – they didnt work as a combination! They might be good individual players but as a combination they struggled against most teams and got murdered by the bulls – hehe sorry, had to mention that.
14 Nov 2006, 10:46 am
Ex Player
Its phenomenal to think what the man could have achieved if he hadnt become so sick. In this day of professionalism, sports science and supplements you would still never be able to emulate the destruction that was Lomu. A real freak.
14 Nov 2006, 10:46 am
ja ex pl
Well, we wil have to see if players like Ludik, Aplon, Diack, Lobberts etc can make the step up to s14. I wonder if our ccup is not perhaps of low standard – we think weare great and exciting when we play each other – but come s14, we cry weekend after weekend. Remember 1 out of 4 for the weekend? Or a draw out of 5?
14 Nov 2006, 10:47 am
Supa, IMO no Springbok pack should ever go backwards, so I think if they keep Spies there, and choose the right players around him, he could be awsome.
Let’s face it, SA backs don’t have the skills of the French, Kiwi’s or even Aussies.
That is why we need a strong pack, and keep the game plan the same as Doc Craven said: First make them soft at front, then hit them at the back.
14 Nov 2006, 10:48 am
Supa
I think that combo needs time. Its a theory at the mo, I am open to being proved wrong. How about this:
6. Schalk
7. Joe
8. Watson (he has the skill set thats for sure, sometimes reminds me of Bobby in the impact he has on the game)
14 Nov 2006, 10:50 am
Diesel
Yeah, loads of goog loosies:
Bulls:
Dlulane
Spies
P3
Lobberts
Wikus
WP:
Watson
Schalk
Joe
Diack
Sharks:
Botes
AJ
Cheetahs:
Floors
Ryno
Lions:
Ernst Joubert
Cobus Grobbelaar
All these players i believe can make the Bok side – but like Martin said – the key is to find the right combination!
14 Nov 2006, 10:50 am
Hoe laat speel die Bokke se eerste span Saterdag? Ek het hulle verlede week gemis, en moes kyk hoe die vyfde opf… teen Ierland
14 Nov 2006, 10:51 am
“The problem is the defensive pattern and the attack play of the backs.
But our back play needs an overhaul. Jake has not progressed. He was inspirational in 2004 and forward thinking. He led the world coaches in vision, when others had become stale. Now it is he who is stale, whilst other lead”
If one look at the French , they were also poor in defence, the ABs scored at will.
Our problem is we play a negative game , the JAKE WHITE PLAN, if you look at the ABs succses rate on atacks , i am sure that only 1 in 5 or even less is succsesful , but they attack 30+ times in a match and they strech the opposition far more than us
14 Nov 2006, 10:53 am
Supa, I think you might be right with CC.
I have seen great football matches in the First devision of English soccer, because the guys are of same standard.
I know the excuses are gonna be traveling, but after all these years, the guys should be use to it by now.
Even look at the First devision final between Boland and Leopards, was a great game, but if it would have been Boland against WP or Bullls, it would have been one way traffic.
14 Nov 2006, 10:54 am
Ex Player
I REFUSE to believe that kind of sentiment. We have the skilled backs. Just look at the Currie Cup and the age group teams at national level. Its in the Super Series and the Internationals where we are shown up. We do not recreate that kind of “total rugby” internationally. One can fill the streets with media articles on why that is. This country is yet to harness the true potential of its rugby pool. We are a sleeping giant, and no, i am being serious. Just think if we emulated the structures of the Irish and applied it to out structure which are three or four times the size of theirs. Out strength is actually our weakness, we have too much talent and not enough management. Across all levels. Get the management right and you will see.
14 Nov 2006, 10:55 am
Voetap
Ek dink 4uur
Diesel
Its a bold choice but it might work. But i think you might be picking with your heart there mate – 3 wp loosies – the same ones that struggled in the s14 – you just switched them around. But, we never know i guess – i cant see any coach playing them like that.
14 Nov 2006, 10:58 am
Thanks Supa
Agreed- All those guys could make the the starting lineups of most international teams, except maybe New Zealand. And those teams would give arm and leg for them. It is the same in the locks, hookers, props, scrumhalves and outsidebacks.
14 Nov 2006, 10:59 am
No Supa, I meant for the Super 14. i would NEVER pick them like that for the Boks.
14 Nov 2006, 11:00 am
Diesel
Luke was used at 8 for WP for a while. Recently his play is more that of an 8 than a 6. As we’ve been saying, it’s getting the combination right. To date, Jake hasn’t really tried to build a combination, just selects the biggest, strongest and fastest (Cronje excluded).
14 Nov 2006, 11:01 am
Diesel
We certainly have the talent, but it is not utilized properly. Our ccup seems great but when we play s14 we see how our standard really is, we lose weekend after weekend. Although we have the awesome talent – it doesnt mean our ccup is of high standard. It might look really good – but like Ex said – let those same teams play the Saders and we get a hiding.
14 Nov 2006, 11:02 am
Diesel, maybe our backs have the skills then, but we need a coach that give a back the framework, but the player must still complete the picture.
That is what Rassie do, and what Mallet did.
We have to many coaches that want to tell a layer exactly how to play, and take the creative side away.
Someone like Habbana. I can only asume he was told to do it, but everytime in the past year he got the ball, he chipped.
On Saturday he decided to run, and scored a amazing try.
14 Nov 2006, 11:03 am
Lads, I really do wonder sometimes whether Jake, Alistair aand Gert sit up late at night and have similar discussions like we are. My guess is not, or else we would be sitting pretty in those world rankings. Gents, I must get back to work.
A good day to you all.
14 Nov 2006, 11:05 am
oh ok diesel – thought you meant the boks.
The reason why i say we have the talent is: If we can be competitive or even the best at schools, 0/19 and 0/21 level we definately have the players. But as soon as the senior coaches influence step in – we start struggeling.
14 Nov 2006, 11:06 am
Guys, if you had the option of plaing either for NZ,or Sa, what will you choose.
It is suppose to be a straigt awnser, but our rugby is of such standard, thet I would rather play for the Kiwis.
14 Nov 2006, 11:07 am
ex
We have the raw talent – but the skills levels leaves needs some proper working.
14 Nov 2006, 11:07 am
Ex
Saturdays try was eveideence of what the kid can do, I agree. He has been coached to chip and kick. Its the lack of confidence that shows there. When you look at a new guy like Aplon, Pretorius, Burger, Ludik and Steyn, they back them selves to beat their man. Give it one year and a coach will “coach” that out of them. This explains Habana’s glory first year, and his abysmal second. This safety first stuff is the problem. “Fortune favours the brave,” I think a great Roman general said that once. Its applicable today.
14 Nov 2006, 11:09 am
Well said, our educated dieselboy.
14 Nov 2006, 12:00 pm
Ig are boys hosting from your homes the site is so slow.
14 Nov 2006, 12:04 pm
Ig
Why did Keo write ” Keo, in his Business Day column writes…” when he posted?
14 Nov 2006, 12:08 pm
I feel with you guys and my heartfelt condolences.
At the moment the blokke is just plane fusty or for the lack of better word “K@K”
this mess u in is not a solitary thing to be put the “couch” JW and his clowns but also the player. What happen to evaluating the opposition and adapt or die? I think your problem is still the absence of a fetcher who will be able to do covering behind the backline.
Fact is that JW is jinx (not u Jinx, some hoodoo stuff from EC) for not playing Unlucky Luke
15 Nov 2006, 15:54 pm
Not just Luke, Kabamba and Barend Pieterse. Now JW is calling on Rassie, Clive Woodward, Gert Smal and Allistair Coetzee as his assistants, Balie Swart as srum coach makes you think…. Jake is CLUELESS.
Pages: « 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.