4-12-2010: Barbarians vs. Springboks @ Twickenham

[Amobokoboko]

Great stuff by the Baabaas, Juan Smit didn't look that happy. But good to see SA came back in the second half.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

SA looked like absolute crap, Juan Smith was an absolute joke, electing to kick repeatedly for goal vs the Barbarians, how did that work for you bud?

Horrible team, horrible tactics and a horrible coach.

His decision making was poor, I agree but I am not the person who changes his opinion after just 1 match. I stick with what I stand for for at least a couple of matches, just like LordHope only changed his view on Andries Strauss after a couple of matches (actually only after the final haha).

On the other hand, why horrible team? Who should have played in stead? Maybe Aplon on the wing in stead of Ndungane and Mtawarira in stead of Oosthuizen but even then we would have lost this. The Barbarians should face a full-strength team to see how they would do.

 

[DuncTheDoodle]

Suprisingly dull game. I was hoping for random runing rugby, but we got, as Sky described it "A proper test". I shouldn't build these things up in my head.

 

[Bossco]

On the other hand, why horrible team?

Should have switched round the order, horrible coach who employs horrible tactics = horrible team, not so much the players fault. If you watched that game knowing nothing of Rugby and were asked to pick which team had only been together and coached for 4 days you would say SA. I was amazed by how bad the backs looked both on attack and defense, realistically

The Barbarians should face a full-strength team to see how they would do.

I think SA would grind out a win playing ugly, kicking penalties and relying on mistakes, but thats not really the point of Barbarian rugby, the games are a chance for both teams backs to shine playing running rugby which even a full strength SA team struggles to do

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

That might be true but have you looked at the players in our back-line?

Hougaard, Jantjies and Lambie are all still very young and Lambie didn't even play his favourite position. Ndungane is a miserable winger despite the intercept try and Mvovo only played his 3rd match as a Springbok. Only Jacobs and Strauss had some experience but are not close to the quality de Jongh, de Villiers, Fourie and even Olivier and Terblanche would show.

You cannot blame the players in the backline for performing poorly since they just cannot do any better.

 

[Bossco]

Wouldn't have thought the lack of quality backs would be due to a lack of depth in SA rugby thou surely given S14 and Currie Cup, is it selection issues?

Regardless though they look like they do not even have a backs coach and even at relatively full strength look dismal in that regard especially on attack, and not just in comparison to N.Z/Aus but also England.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well Bossco, tell me... Who would you select?

Habana, Fourie, de Jongh, de Villiers, Basson, Kirchner, Olivier, Pienaar, Francois Steyn, Pietersen, du Preez are all unavailable due to injuries or the clubs not releasing them. Tell me please, who would you have selected? The 35-year old Stefan Terblanche? Jaco van der Westhuyzen? John Mametsa maybe? The only one maybe good enough would be van den Heever. At fullback I would have preferred Louis Ludik or Conrad Jantjes but apart from that we have not much choice for our backline.

 

[Larksea]

missed the game, shame I wanted to see how bourke & Jack Went. Well done to the Baba's beat the AB's last year now the boks and that sly dog Rokocoko was in both teams.

 

[Bossco]

Well Bossco, tell me... Who would you select?

Dunno mate, you guys are more knowledgeable than me when it comes to SA, thats why I was asking you whether it was a lack of depth in key positions or selection issues. I do follow quite a bit of the CC and obviously super 14 which is why I find it so surprising given the quality of play and depth of talent that there is such a contrast when it comes to the Bok backline.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, we have depth but if you are missing out on 15 players at the start of the tour and another 12 for the Barbarians-match, that is a whole squad including subs you are missing out on. You can have depth but at some point it's just not possible any more to find a team of 15 players to beat a World Class team. I think New Zealand and Australia would have the same problem when they are missing this number of players

 

[Tank94]

everyone's neen giving SA a lot of kak about what happened in the AI's but we didnt even have a full strength team. Missing players like jaque fourie, fourie du preez, de jongh, burger etc etc etc. and despite having all those injuries to deal with SA still beat Wales, Ireland and England some of the best teams the NH has to offer. imagine how SA would have done with a full team.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Most teams had players missing!

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Normally you are missing 3 or 4 players, not an entire backline. Du Preez, Fourie, de Jongh, Pietersen and later on Habana and Basson are all players out with injuries. On top of that Rossouw, Brussouw, Bekker, Smit and Burger.

Not an excuse, just saying. I still feel that games like these against the Barbarians are a buzz kill if a team is playing with the 3rd choice for most positions. Oosthuizen, Adriaan Strauss, Andries Strauss, Ndungane, McLeod, Hargreaves, Jantjies, Alberts, Lambie, Mvovo are all players who had close to no experience in the Springbok-squad. I still feel it would be much more entertaining if we could have used Matfield, Spies, Bismarck and Jannie du Plessis, de Jongh, Fourie, de Villiers, de Preez, Rossouw, Bekker and all those others in a match against the Barbarians. That would bring out the best in the Baa-baas as well in stead of the match dying halfway through

 

[Larksea]

Injuries do have an impact. Last years AB's were gutted with injuries and slowley rebuilt during the year to regain the #1 spot but it cost them the tri nations and an early test against france.

AB's dominated in 2008, in 2009 all but 2-3 of the key players from 2008 had major injury set backs. I think "partly" because of the big workload most players had in 2008.

Though overall 2010 hasn't been good for injuries around the AB's either with the likes of Williams out for the whole season and Kahui, Dagg, Weepu & Ben Franks hit during season and Hore & Toeava missing for most of the season, plus a few others who missed games with minor injuries.

 

[nickdnz]

Well, we have depth but if you are missing out on 15 players at the start of the tour and another 12 for the Barbarians-match, that is a whole squad including subs you are missing out on. You can have depth but at some point it's just not possible any more to find a team of 15 players to beat a World Class team. I think New Zealand and Australia would have the same problem when they are missing this number of players

Different problem. We could pretty much have a totally new backline and be fine, except at fly half and half back, in which we'd be screweed, so we'd still probably lose.

Picking a backline that wasn't on tour for the All Blacks and was avalible/uninjured -

9. Brendan Leonard, Taniela Moa, Tyson Keats. That's a pretty weak selection.
10. Colin Slade, Aaron Cruden, Stephen Brett. Those three are promising, but not up to Carter's level.
11. Zac Guildford, Ben Smith
12. Luke McAlister, Benson Stanely, Tana Umaga
13. Robert Fruean, Rene Range
14. Julian Savea, Lelia Masaga
15. Tim Nanai-Williams

And those don't include any of the players on tour. Obviously though, missing out on 15 players is very rough. In 2009 during the June series, and early Tri Nations, we were in the same boat.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

1 Guthro Steenkamp
2 John Smit
3
4
5
6 Schalk Burger
7 Heinrich Brussouw
8
9 Fourie du Preez
10
11
12 Juan de Jongh
13 Jacque Fourie
14 JP Pietersen
15

16
17
18 Andries Bekker
19 Danie Rossouw
20 Ricky Januarie
21
22

And I've only included players that would normally make the matchday squad although I would personally drop Smit and Januarie. That's precisely half the regular squad and our most influencial backline players including the best player in the world.

That said, I think we do have the depth to have done better in both 3N and AI's but the problem lies with the gameplan and tactical nouse or lack thereof. The baabaas game IMO we were always going to struggle taking into account that 27 higher ranked players weren't available for the match with wholesale changes to test the fringe players much like the 3rd test against the B&I Lions last year.

 

[nickdnz]

1 Guthro Steenkamp
2 John Smit
3
4
5
6 Schalk Burger
7 Heinrich Brussouw
8
9 Fourie du Preez
10
11
12 Juan de Jongh
13 Jacque Fourie
14 JP Pietersen
15

16
17
18 Andries Bekker
19 Danie Rossouw
20 Ricky Januarie
21
22

And I've only included players that would normally make the matchday squad although I would personally drop Smit and Januarie. That's precisely half the regular squad and our most influencial backline players including the best player in the world.

That said, I think we do have the depth to have done better in both 3N and AI's but the problem lies with the gameplan and tactical nouse or lack thereof. The baabaas game IMO we were always going to struggle taking into account that 27 higher ranked players weren't available for the match with wholesale changes to test the fringe players much like the 3rd test against the B&I Lions last year.

All Blacks had the same thing when we lost last year.

 

[Seaton]

Normally you are missing 3 or 4 players, not an entire backline. Du Preez, Fourie, de Jongh, Pietersen and later on Habana and Basson are all players out with injuries. On top of that Rossouw, Brussouw, Bekker, Smit and Burger.

Just to chip in to the injury list thing

Scotland played against SA with their 4th choice captain, in Rory Lawson
Regualr captain(s) Chris Cusiter and Mike Blair were injured, as was lock Allistair Kellock
We were also missing Johnnie Beattie, and the now retired Thom Evans (due to injury), Moray Low and Al Strokosch, back-up flyhalf Phil Godman and Max Evans

So, there are 5 members there (Cusiter, Kellock, Beattie and both Evans) who are first choice, and they are all key players for us. As for the others, well the depth in Scottish rugby is best left unmentioned. So considering that only 6/7 of the injured SA players would have actually started, I think the whole "SA would have dominated, but we had X many players injured" argument doesn't have that much ground to stand on (not that the SA posters on TRF use this argument)

Wales were also missing some key players and depth, so surprisingly enough it was the most depleted NH teams who put up the biggest fight against the Boks

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

It is true that every nation misses players due to injury of course. I haven't seen Scotland play a lot so I don't know. All I remember from the test against SA is the captain Lawson and that prop with a belly bigger than Santa Claus.

 

[Larksea]

The interesting thing about Scotland win for me was that the AB's had just totally thrashed the scots big time. Hard to imagine how the boks couldn't have pulled out a win against the same side.

Though I think a similar thing happened last year. SA lost to france then the AB's thrashed the same French side soon after.