| Volume 3, Week 41 | |
|
|
|
|
Editors Note |
|
|
Brilliant! After more than a month of test matches rugby lovers can look forward to the World Cup final this coming
weekend. The two teams, Australia and England have earned the right to compete for the game’s ultimate accolade – world champions. The semi-finals produced one excellent match and one very boring affair, Australia beat the rather flat-looking New Zealand All Blacks to progress to their third final. An interesting stat is that they have not lost in a final yet. The Wallabies choked down the All Blacks’ danger men, tackled for their lives and used every opportunity presented to record an upset victory over the form team of the tournament. The New Zealand forwards, so brilliant and effective the week before let themselves down this time around and one wonders how much the Springbok effort sapped their energy levels. Richie McCaw is in this writer’s opinion, one of the finest loose forwards in world rugby and proved so again today in the third/fourth place play-off against France. New Zealanders, as probably the most passionate rugby nation will be terribly upset by their team’s inability to take the step up in the RWC competition, and this year probably even more so. Coach Mitchell promised so much and was very successful in this year’s Tri Nations when they compiled handsome scores against the Springboks and Wallabies with their exciting style of play. He also attracted plenty of criticism for discarding living legends like Cullen and Mehrtens and his less than charismatic style with the press did not endear him to many of his countryman. Like many other coaches, he asked to be judged by results in the World Cup – judged he will be and in a country where there are good coaching structures and plenty of contenders, the guillotine might fall. Eddie Jones, on the other hand has proved very adept at pacing his team and re-introducing injured players like Mortlock to play starring roles. Admittedly, their passage to the semis was one of the easiest but when their big test came, they succeeded spectacularly. Many people dislike the man, mostly due to his utterances in press conferences, however having listened to the blubberings of Straeuli and Mitchell, the arrogance of Woodward, Jones struck this part timer as an intelligent, eloquent and very funny man. As they all requested to judge them on the World Cup Eddie is, so far laughing the hardest and last. Few can argue the merit of England’s berth in the final as arguably the best team in the world over the last two years. The match was a disappointment as France rolled over and played dead chicken rather than fighting rooster to the kicking boot of Jonny Wilkinson. Watching this match in near 40-degree heat in Botswana, there was a good sprinkling of English supporters amongst the many travelers straining to see the television in a sun drenched bush pub. They were not disappointed as the English fo rwards again laid a good foundation for victory. England should not make the mistake of playing Catt at inside centre against the Australians, he has an excellent tactical mind however with two decision makers who do not really compliment each other at 10 and 12, and a dry field they will receive a nasty surprise from a quick recycling Australian team. George Smith will hound them into errors and the rhythm so carefully built up by Tindall and Greenwood will all be gone. To win England need to return to the pattern and personnel that almost won them a world record of successive test victories and use their bench to great effect as they did against the Welsh. Who will win this final? With a brilliant referee in Andre Watson an open running match is expected and his good use of the advantage laws will favour the Australian's phased approach. Australia also has home team advantage and at this level it counts for a few percentage points but with 20,000 English fans biding for victory it could be safely negated. England has the momentum as a team who have played an incredible amount of tests together and the experience to maintain composure in the toughest of circumstances. With a rather dubious record at predicting the victors in this World Cup here we go - England to win and be crowned the first Northern He misphere team to do so. Heaven knows, what will happen if they do not win it… they are the best and most expensively prepared team on the planet with the best 24-month record and all this should count for something. Rugby however is more of a romantic’s game than a pragmatist’s and Australia is in with a 50/50 chance. The All Blacks hammered France in the ¾ play off early today and revenged their 1999 defeat with a few excellent tries and a far better showing in the forwards. Enjoy the final, it promises to be a grand occasion and hopefully the match will live up to the standards set in 91 and 95. Lucas lucas@rugbyforum.co.za |
|
|
| Visit www.rugbyforum.co.za for statistics, all the quotes and an archive of previous issues |
|
|
| Consistency Please by Desmond Organ |
|
Several days ago as I flew to Brisbane to watch the Springboks in what was to be their final act of success for the year; I was quietly confident that the World Cup had largely gone off without to many controversies from a referees perspective. Imagine my delight at being seated a row across from the three match officials for the Samoan encounter. Not being a well recognised scribe was going to be much to my advantage that fine day. As it turned out the three officials decided to engage in a fairly lengthy debate as to the merits of the binding being utilised by many teams during a rolling maul. Whilst the English appeared to have been at the centre of the controversy and the All Blacks appear to have perfected the art of binding correctly; the discussion that I lent my ears too was anything but settling. Not one of the three could come to consensus on the issue of what constitutes illegal binding. The only consensus was that if you are illegally bound, the player in front of you is obstructing the opposition. The major issue of contention was weather or not the players arm and shoulders had to be in contact with the player he was bound too. The mere laying of arms on a player; a feat carried out by the person at the back of the maul was defined as contrary to the laws of the game. For my money a player can be bound without his shoulders being in contact with his team mate as long as there is a strong bind with the length of the arm from the shoulder. The fact that several officials could not agree leads me to the point of questioning weather or not there is an official ranking system in place for referees, and if so, how are they consistently monitored beyond the IRB sanctioned training that they receive? The matches this past weekend raised the eyebrows of several of the passionate supporters in my presence and none more so than the Scotland versus Australia game. English, Scottish, Australian and other nationalities present agreed that it was perhaps the worst example of match officiating at this World Cup. Some even went as far to suggest that it was far more serious than the flouting of rules in the case of the Fijian player that was suspended for two games as opposed to the mandatory three and the presence of sixteen players on the field several weeks earlier. If there is one thing that most people have finally agreed too in World rugby it is that the use of decoy runners is acceptable only if they do not obstruct the opposition if defending against the ball carrier. On Saturday there were several blatant obstructive plays through the use of decoy runners that were not blown at all. If a referee is going to interpret the rules of play then he has to be consistent. This is also clearly the case when it comes to rucking a player that is preventing the ball from emerging from a ruck. If a player is rucking a person with a deliberate downward movement of the feet then there has to be a penalty for stomping. The same can be said for players that ruck at bodies that are nowhere near the ball. The censures that have been handed down in this World Cup so far smack of a lack of professionalism as far as the citing commissioners are concerned. If Argentinean players and Scottish players are banned for acts of dirty play then the same thing should be happening to the players who ruck walking backwards and players who deliberately collapse scrum formations. One desperate fan went as far as saying that if the rules of scrummaging are allowed to be eroded any further we might as well be playing rugby league; in which case it would suit the Australians who are becoming adept at manipulating referees through not committing to scrums and delaying feeds when an opposition loose head prop has completely mastered his opposite number. As we approach the semi-final matches one must hope that those referees that have been the most consistent in terms of interpreting the more contentious aspects of the game will be those that are selected to officiate. If this is not the case then we might all be left thinking that the revenue generated from the tournament is more important than the most consistent performances from both players and match officials. |
|
|
|
Subscribe to Sharkmail, weekly E-Zine sent to you from the heart of Natal Sharks Rugby. Get the latest news and competitions. Subscribe at sharksrugby@mweb.co.za |
|
|
| Choke blacks 2003 by Vinesh Naicker |
|
I’ve held off from writing this article until the last minute because I did not want to commit my symbolic pen to paper until I got over the disappointment of last weekend. I know that the “cheerleaders” will be out there saying “It is just a game” and “Hey, guess what, the sun will still rise tomorrow morning.” To them all I can say is if it is just a game then, why do we spend so much time writing about it, and why do you spend so much time reading about it? If it’s just a game then don’t even
bother reading the rest of what I have to say. The greatest disappointment for me in the game on Saturday was the lack of hunger shown by the Kiwis, they showed the same flatness that the Springboks had shown the week before with the same results. They lacked the will to win and a method of executing that desire. I’ve heard the excuses about how the Wallabies didn’t let them into the game but the fact of the matter is that all the Wallabies did was defend like their lives depended on it. Mortlock made huge yards through the mid-field but other than that you could not say that the Australians did a single outstanding thing on attack to win the game. The one try they did score was a gift from Carlos Spencer. A two man cut out pass when the defence was up that quickly was insane. If Pieter Rossouw had been at the game he would have had time to climb down from the stands and intercept it for one of his trademark tries, that’s how well telegraphed it was. Going into the World Cup the NZ public had four big questions about the team. Firstly, what had been done about our shaky line outs? Secondly, how were we going to win tight games without a world class goal-kicker? Thirdly, did Reuben Thorne have the captaincy skills required? Fourthly, was Mitchell cunningly keeping moves and stratagems under cover for the World Cup to spring on his unsuspecting opponents? He refused to talk to the media and hence the public about his plans keeping them all within a black box. We hoped that the black box was full of tricks that would win us the World Cup. The answers to these questions are: Firstly, nothing had been done about the line outs, as Australia beat us all around the park on these. The setups and calls were so slow that the Australians had ample time to counter them. Secondly, the answer to the goal kicking question is that if the All Blacks were not going to score more tries than the opposition then they were not going to win. Simple as that. Despite the fact that history shows that the team that kicks the most points in the finals invariably wins. Thirdly, when Ben Darwin was being attended to, did Reuben Thorne gather the troops together and lay down the law? Did he say that the approach of getting the ball out to the wings as fast as possible was obviously not working and that they should try to cut back inside or use the pick and go? No, he and all the other players stood around without a care in the world or did stretches. There was no leadership on display. While the feisty Gregan was haranguing the referee Thorne was nowhere to be h eard. Fourthly, were there some hidden tricks in the black box? No. It turns out the black box was empty and everything the All Blacks had planned had already been shown and used. There was no Plan B. In reply, I’ve heard some “cheerleaders” saying that we weren’t complaining last week, that we were perfectly happy with the team and it’s structures after the Springbok game. Wrong. The reason that most of us kept silent is because despite our misgivings we wanted to show support for our team and for its captain. At the start of the year Mitchell asked us to trust him and to judge him on the results, well the results are in and they’re not good. Mitchell has alienated all but the diehard fans with his attitude and his obscure comments. For him to now say he would like to keep the job despite the results is hypocritical. In the real world if you fail to meet your performance objectives you are history. There is a reason why Mitchell gets paid 10 times as much as the average New Zealander and why in many ways his profile is higher than the Prime Ministers. He was hired for one thing and one thing only; to win the World Cup. You shouldn’t get two bites of the cherry. Mitchell has been ruthless in getting rid of players who didn’t suit his plan, judging them on their current form. He should be judged in the same way. On current form he should be dumped. At the start of the year Mitchell told us he was going to pick specialist players in each position, so what happens at World Cup time? He plays a fullback at centre and uses him as a goal kicker. When was the last time the All Blacks played a fullback at centre? Answer, the 1999 World Cup semi-final. NZ is in a better position than South Africa in that we have a more than competent replacement available in Graham Henry. Unless the NZRFU decide that Mitchell should take the All Blacks through to the next World Cup then they should get rid of him now and allow Henry 4 years to get it right, what is the point of retaining Mitchell for another year? Waikato hasn’t appointed a coach for next season, if they sack Mitchell by Friday he could still get the job. He seems more suited to that level and should pay his dues before having another crack at the All Black job. The All Blacks are out of the World Cup, dumped ignominiously. As they have so many times in the past, they promised only to deceive. Why did this happen? I close with a comment from David Kirk, the only All Black captain to win the World Cup. “The difficulty with searching for the reason why the All Blacks yet again fell at the second-to-last fence in the biggest tournament of them all is that the answer lies deeply buried somewhere in the murky combination of intellect and emotion that is the ferocious will to win. This will is not just trying your guts out until there is nothing left, although that is a minimum requirement. The ferocious will to win that has characterised the All Blacks for 100 years is an amalgam of self-belief, ambition, cunning, aggression, bitterness, courage and bile. All kept in check and marshalled by love for the team, the jersey and an appreciation of how lucky we are to be in that jersey at that moment, representing our country.” |
|
|
| Quotes |
|
The World Cup is just there now, it seems you can almost touch it. But think ahead like that and everything falls apart. You don't think ahead to the result of the next game, you think ahead to the start of it.
Jonny Wilkinson Ten years after my retirement from the game, I want to be among the select few when people pick their all-time dream team. Or, if I don't make that side, I want to be a strong contender, at least. Jonny Wilkinson I don't think I'm obsessed with stats at all. But I think what you have to go off is objective data. Rugby is a game where you do have objective data. Eddie Jones The myth of Wilkinson being rugby's "best" player has been rightly buried in this World Cup. His passing from his left is weak, he's not fast, and he's not even the best five-eighth in his own team. That's why they need dear old Mike Catt. Malcolm Knox, Sports Writer That sort of camp is nothing new. We did things that were in the interests of the team, and that's all that matters. Anthony Mackaiser Passion, courage and commitment are not enough to win matches. Players must also be taught to remain calm under pressure. We believed we could beat New Zealand, but when things went wrong and they took us on up front, we did not know how to respond. Henning Gericke, Sports Psychologist We've got a completely different side that played (England) in June. Maybe only six of the team are the same. We've got a young pack and they have no fear. They've got nothing to be frightened of. They'll play with a lot of aggression and if we're good enough we'll get on top of them and if we're not good enough, we won't. We've got no fear at all. Eddie Jones One of the hardest thing about being an All Black is that nothing you do ever seems to be good enough. People always want more. If we win, they want us to win better. The hardest thing about being an All Black is trying to live up to it. Reuben Thorne |
|
|
|
Join the SARUGBY news and discussion group for the fastest sarugby news and the most intense debates around the South African game. Send a blank email to sarugby-subscribe@yahoogroups.com |
|
|
| Letters to the Editor |
|
Hi Lucas World Cup As you can see is this letter written on the eve of the clash between the All Blacks and the Springboks. I do not know if you or the readers can recall that I have said in previous correspondence that Rudolph will pull a rabbit out the hat, I still think he can and will. For Peter Giroudo in Nairobi Kenya, thanks for your comments. Our biggest enemy in this country is ourselves. I hope we will see the Jumpingbucks lifting the cup. If we loose against the mother country (England) so be it as long as i t is not against the Aussies. Another thing that caught my attention was the tackles the Samoans and Fijians made on their opponents. It was a thin line between high and dangerous. They hit their opponents with the shoulder on the chest area (Derek Hougaard was a victim), which I think is just as dangerous as grabbing around the neck. Fortunately they went home. I hope my dreams come true. Chris Erasmus |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas What's The Fuss All About? As an outsider, I cannot understand what all the fuss is about now that the Springboks are out of the World Cup. Calls for heads to role from the top down, may or may not help the situation, but the reality is that the Springboks where always highly unlikely to proceed further than the quarter finals. In a voting survey on the Supersport web site leading up to the tournament, a combined 83% of respondents voted that the Springboks would either not proceed beyond the pool stages or the quarter finals. It has been evident for sometime now that the Springboks would not proceed further than the quarter finals, based on their mostly poor performances over the past 3 years. Anyone believing that the team would progress further and even to the extent of winning the tournament which includes the team, man agement and hierarchy, where only bluffing themselves and not facing reality. The transformation saga has once again been raised as one of the reasons for the poor performances, if not the main or sole reason. I agree, however in the context that to much emphasis has been placed on transformation (the do and end all approach at the expense of acceptable performances and results) and too little has been done on the administration and running of the game in SA, particularly at club level. The transformation issue will take care of it's self if players have a strong club base, pr ove themselves at this level, then be selected only on merit for provincial teams and the national team. The World Cup has panned out the way most have predicted and with no major shocks which includes the departure of the Springboks at the predicted stage. Their performance on the day against a somewhat satisfactory performance by the All Blacks was no worse than some of their performances in the Try Nations and games leading up to the World Cup. I do believe however that Rudolph Struelli and Corne' Krige should have the guts to step down, as all along they have repeatedly stated, that they should be judged on their performance in the World Cup. These performances have been nothing else but to what one would have expected and nothing more than that, which was the case in the end. I hope that all the Springbok supporters will not lose interest in the tournament and rally preferable behind the All Blacks to keep the trophy in the Southern Hemisphere. Regards Schultzy |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas AB's vs Boks Q/F Let us get one thing clear - New Zealand's win over South Africa was the most disappointing match of the World Cup. By a distance. In fact, in terms of let-down on expectation, the thwarting of delicious anticipation, the lack of buzz, edge, drama and atmosphere, Saturday was one of the most deflating rugby experiences in my working life. The tickets had been overpriced, and the gaping holes in the stands told their own tale. Many of us travelled many miles to witness a historic face-off between the game's traditional superpowers. We did not even get a contest, more a parade. Or should that be charade? Yet what of the Springboks who exited the World Cup at their earliest-ever stage? Were they too non-triers? They headed home with barely a whimper of protest. "We won hearts and minds," their coach Rudi Straeuli said. Sure did. The hearts and minds of three million New Zealanders, as a colleague remarked. There was no snarl or devil in Springbok play, no clenched-teeth tackling, no trademark smashing and crashing across the gain line. Gone, all gone. Only No 8 Juan Smith could be exempted from the blanket criticism. Just another disillusioned and fed up Bok supporter! |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas Boks Flatter to Deceive! Once again the gullible public have been duped into believing that their once mighty Springboks were back on the road again. Unfortunately, the match against Samoa was, in reality, nothing more than a training session that completely failed to highlight the Boks obvious frailties. The truth of the matter is that Samoa simply managed to have a once-in-a-lifetime performance against England and were never destined to repeat that performance against the lowly Boks! On Saturday, against a relatively poor All Black performance, the Boks once again showed their true colours. A team devoid of leadership, devoid of ball retention skills, devoid of defensive skills and, most definitely, devoid of quality coaching. The saddest aspect of last weekends humiliation was that, of the 8 quarter finalists, the Springboks were by far the worst team on display. We are now no better than 8th in the world and will slip even further should the current administration continue to (mis)manage South African rugby. The overhaul of SARFU has not simply arrived; it's long overdue! If Riaan and co. were men of integrity and if they truly had the interest of SA Rugby at heart, they would do the honourable thing and tender their resignations. (Though there's more chance of the Sharks actually winning the Currie Cup - and I'm a Sharks supporter!!!) I am in absolute disagreement with those calling for calm and insisting that the squad be retained. What utter nonsense! Springbok jerseys are a priviledge and not a right. No one should be held in such high esteem that they have right of passage into the next Springbok team. If any of the current batch of players are good enough they will surely put their hands up and be selected on merit? Let those players who were part of this debacle show us that they are deserving of such high honours (and pay cheques) by providing us with some world class S12 performances. I am of the opinion that SA Rugby will continue to underperform as long as the current administration is at the helm. The time has come for the true rugby heroes to return to the fold - Morne Du Plessis, Danie Gerber, Nick Mallet, Naas Botha, Ian Mac to name a few. Campbell Fuller |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas The fact that the team representing South Africa at the rugby World Cup lay down like weak puppies in front of the All Blacks, thus are not entitled to be called Springboks, was embarrassing enough but the whingeing and whimpering from Straeuli, Sam and van der Westhuizen thereafter was beyond the pale! Juus, when you get thumped after you've made promises to raise the expectancy levels of your supporters, pumped yourself up to believe you're essentially indomitable as a forward pack only to discover you're actually papier-mâché, then you have to admit it not try and couch your inability in excuses! What a pathetic bunch! As for Straeuli - so many questions, so few answers. Heard in the gym today: 'At the after match cocktail party Straeuli went in fancy dress as a pumpkin. He was hoping at the stroke of midnight he'd turn into a coach!' Let's pose a few: 1. After the Tour to Europe last year and its debacle of record losses, Straeuli said: 'Too many injuries to key players, watch us in the World Cup.' - So we did, what were we to watch for? 2. After the poor pre-Tri-Nations and Tri-Nations Test efforts Straeuli again said: 'We are aimed at World Cup success and are still building, looking at combinations and allowing injured players to return to form.' - So we did, but was the World Cup target he had in mind the same as ours? 3. After the Squad selection Straeuli stated: 'This is the best group of players in the country, we are confident of success in the World Cup.' - We had to try and share the confidence as we had no option, but what was his belief based on as they'd never played together? 4. After the World Cup quarterfinal loss Straeuli and his cohorts said: 'This is a brilliant young squad but the World Cup was a year too soon.' - Did no one tell Straeuli when developing his squad that the World Cup was not in 2004? I'd also like to know why he replaced Jean De Villiers, a centre, with Jaco van der Westhuisen, a fullback when he'd already selected four other fullbacks in his squad. Additionally, how Jaco came to surpass the four ahead of him in the selection queue when three of them hadn't even been given a run in their position? Then I'd like to know why he kept selecting Joost who was so obviously twelve Tests past his sell-by date? Did he really want to watch another thundering hit from those speciality hospital passes? (Remember Reuben Kruger receiving an essentially career ending one? ) Now Hougaard knows too! Finally, its time for that arrogant incompetent Rian Oberholtzer to be kicked out of rugby as far as eternal silence can bring. Surely he must realise he is accountable to the supporters and its time for new leadership in this professional era? Storm Ferguson |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas Rugby Officials "The world is but a stage and each one of us must play his part" Pardon me if I'm not qouting this correctly but I have this hunch, and it is said that one must trust your hunches because they are based on facts filed away just below the conscious level. I have this hunch that the referees and linejudges are still going to play a huge part in the outcome and final result of the World Cup 2003, and I'm afraid it is not going to be good. I qualify my hunch on some harsh, dubious and subtle decisions m ade by them officials which I picked up in my observations in studying a number of games. Hope I am wrong, for what we want is that the best team shall hold the trophy high and that team is not the Springboks. On the Boks performance, they played like a team that was served breakfast by Suzie, who-ever she is, and the breakfast was prepared by a former ALL Black coach. Just joking. I'm writing this ahead of this weekend's semifinals. Koos Carelse |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas Top 10 Reasons... The Top 10 reasons why the Springboks are not playing in Saturday's RWC final are: 1. Injuries. World class players, such as Marius Joubert, Jean de Villiers and Brent Russell, got injured at the worst possible time. In addition, players like Breyton Paulse and Werner Greeff did not have sufficient time to properly recover from prior injuries. The injury to Joe van Niekerk was a final and telling blow. This leads directly to problem number 2... 2. Lack of depth. While our top 22 or so players are comparable to the very best in the world, our second tier leaves a lot to be desired. The injuries to the players mentioned above left the Bok backline with only two players (Ashwin Willemse and Jaco van der Westhuyzen) with any flair. (Jaque Fourie and Breyton Paulse were not picked.) 3. Tactical naïveté. In the week before the clash against the All Blacks, the Bok camp told everyone who cared to listen that they were going to take on the All Blacks up front. Huh? Surely you want to keep the opposition guessing, not simplify their preparations! Added to this, the lack of game-breakers in the backline left the Boks with no alternative strategy once the Blacks stood up to the forward challenge. 4. Poor selections. The Boks ended up with just one specialist centre at the tournament. This poor bloke (De Wet Barry, who really played his heart out) had to play the quarter-finals with two virtual strangers on his inside and outside. The inconsistent selection policy throughout the year prevented the team in general from gelling. Poor Derick Hougaard had to début in the most important games of the tournament for his team! 5. Mental block. Over the last few seasons the All Blacks have gained a psychological edge over the Springboks. It was again clear in the quarter-final that the Boks did not really believe that they could beat the Blacks. To complete this strange "love triangle", the Wallabies appear to have a psychological edge over the All Blacks, while the Wallabies in turn appear to have a similar mental block against the Boks. (Ain't sport weird and wonderful?!) 6. Overly cautious. In the quarter-final it was also obvious that the Boks held back, too scared to give away penalties. This was the Twickenham 2002 chickens coming home to roost, and the mind games that Clive Woodward and Eddie Jones had played on the Boks in the build-up to the tournament. (Not to mention the likes of Stuart Dickinson.) 7. Too many sideshows. The fatal dramas at the pre-tournament training camp and the daunting prospect of a commission of enquiry on their return home must have divided the Boks' attention. So too did their reactions to ex-players' criticism. 8. Lack of experience. The exuberance of youth is wonderful to watch, but when it comes to the crunch time you need some old heads to fall back on. Similarly, the young All Blacks had no answers when the old hands, such as Bill Young, Brendan Cannon, Justin Harrison, Stephen Larkham and Stirling Mortlock started asking the questions. England's "Dad's Army" proved the point in equally convincing fashion against France. 9. Poor coaching. It is beyond me how the Springbok backline deteriorated from one of the most exciting in the world in 2002 (they scored the most tries in the TriNations, remember?) to a toothless and impotent damp squib. Just imagine what last year's backline could have achieved behind this year's pack of forwards! <Sob!> Which brings me back to a line in one of my letters of a few weeks ago: "I would have picked the likes of Brent Russell even if they would have only recovered from injury in time for the knock-out phases." 10. Inconsistency. More than 75 players have been chosen for the Springboks during the 18-month tenure of the current coaching regime. Good heavens, folks! That's 5 different Springbok teams!!! Everyone talks about Clive Woodward having been retained in the post even after his initial lack of success. His long stay in the job per se isn't what made England great, it's the fact that his long stay made it possible that the same players were retained over a long period that did it! The downfall o f the Springbok coaching staff is that they were not consistent in their selections. There you have it. COLIN VAN RENSBURG |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas RWC 2003 exit Ek het vandag nie woorde om my misnoee en teleurstelling uit te spreek oor wat met die Bokke gebeur het nie. Ek wil jou in geen onduidelike terme se dat ek nie 'n probleem het om te verloor indien ek weet ek het my alles gegee nie, maar die wyse waarop die Bokke vs die AB's verloor het is 'n absolute skande en geen wonder net 'n handjie vol ondersteuners het hulle terug verweolkom nie? 29-25 of 29-21 selfs sou nie so bad gewees het nie! Die verskil in honger om te wen was so duidelik soos daglig en dan wil Roedolf my wysmaak dat indien hy dit weer kon oordoen hy dieselfde sou doen? Berge bedek my? Die Springbok is nou genoeg verneder en die tyd om ons respek in wereld rugby te herstel het lankal al aangebreek. SARFU sal skoon gemaak MOET word daar bestaan geen twyfel daaroor nie? Begin by Rian en eindig by die afrigter. Vir Roedolf om ons te kom vertel dat die Springbokke nie agter geraak het by ander lande nie is om ons te probeer wysmaak donkie drolle is vye? Wie dink hy is hy? Dink hy nou vir een oomblik ons is onnosel? Kan so wragtag nie sien wat aangaan nie. Saterdag teen die AB's was daar GEEN gameplan nie man GEEN!! Die manne was so onnnosel dit het op hul gesigte gestaan? Die AB's het letterlik soos hulle dit stel met ons ge-"toyed" ek het nie woorde om my feelings uit te spreek nie. Ek is nou letterlik spraakloos. Ek kan dit nie glo nie. Ons laaste rekord ook nou in flarder! Dat Spencer homself goed dink deur die bal tussen sy bene deur te gooi na sy vleuel wat hy nie eers kon sien of hy daar was nie, is om van iets oor te kom? Dit spreek eersdtens van absolute selfversekerdheid, twwendens van vermoee (skills) derdens van onds "toy" met die ouens en vierdens laat ons pret he manne? Jy moet hoor hoe gaan hulle hier aan in New Zealand my vreind. Hulle maak peopholle van ons en daar is net niks wat ons daaraan kan doen danksy Rian en sy pelle! ek hoop van harte en ek bedoel dit opreg dat daar 'n moerse bom bars in SARFU so by so dat wanneer die stof gann le het sien ons splinte nuwe aanstellings orals met mense wat rugby kennis het en weet hoe om die opposisie te uitoorle? Mense wat nie stront vat van politisie of enige iemand nie? Ek kan nog nie glo wat ek gesien het nie? Dis een te veel vir my. Kan jy glo dat die Springbok met die minnows vergelyk word? Dat ons eintlik nie veel beter as Namibia is nie? Ons was ook maar net 'n nommer tussen die grotes? Nobody cared or worried about us? Nou kan ek ook nie eers meer my trip op die Auckland snelweg met my vlag doen nie, want ek is ook nou 'n peophol? Springbok groetnis FRANS alias Bokbef*k!! |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas WAT NOU EN WAARHEEN? Ja. Ja-nee, ag-shame, foeitog, o-wee, hoe en waarnatoe nou?! Tyd om gal te braak, om stoom af te blaas of sommer net dinge wat krap van jou bors af te kry? 'n Slegte verloorder. Miskien en miskien nie, ewenwel, 'n goeie verloorder is ook 'n konstante verloorder. Daar was niks behalwe 'n totale gemors, 'n sweempie, 'n miskoek van 'n poging van 'n span wat alles belowe en niks gelewer het nie. Ons het 'n feesmaal verwag maar honger en bedonnerd gaan slaap en daar was amper huismoles. Heng, my oorle ouma sou beter tackles ingesit het as hierdie "fikste bokkies" ooit. Corné, julle was gladnie fiks tussen die ore nie, het julle vergeet van die grysstof? Geen wonder iemand oorsee (Aus. of N.S.) het onlangs na ons spelers as breindood verwys nie, en dis terloops da lk die rede hoekom hulle nie kan dink nie, nie kan vang nie, nie kan skop nie, nie 'n gaping kan vat nie, nie weet wat is verdedig nie, nie kan skrum nie, en Jorrie wil of kannie pass nie, en, en!!! Ou Jorrie was so in sy skik met die enigste bal wat hy raakgevat het dat hy die ding nie wou uitgee nie. Almal behalwe hy het al die 7 punte op die bord gesien. Ek reken as ons vir Russell in dié span sit verdubbel die span se denk- en speelvermoë. 'n Half-fikse slim span gaan altyd, maar altyd oorwinning smaak teenoor 'n superfikse dom span. Nog 'n verskoning wat ge-opper word is die tekort aan ondervinding. Bulldust! 'n Speler is goed en het BMT en word al beter. Jy is nie middelmatig en word gaandeweg goed plus BMT word bygevoeg nie, nee, eerder "average will stay average". My ondervinding van sport is dat jy kan of jy kan nie, en basta. 'n Hengse lot van die huidige span kan nie, of het net een of twee basiese aspekte van die spel onder die knie as dit by vernuf kom. So lyk dit in elk geval wanneer hulle die groot honde aanvat. Ek was optimisties, ek was nie bang nie, ek was selfversekerd, want ek het geglo (in ons fikste bokkies ooit), maar, ek was VERKEERD! Ek erken dit ruiterlik, ek was STUPID-onnosel, ek wou nie sien nie, wou nie verstaan nie, het my blind gehou vir al die voortekens, voorbodes en 'n rekord van opgestapelde feite wat agter TRAINER Dolfie (nie COACH nie) en sy makro (fikste) span (70+ spelers) opgestapel lê en soos die Eifeltoring uitgestaan het. Praat van rekords, onse Trainer het 'n groot rekord, ja, g root en aaneenlopende nederlae teen die All Blacks, Engeland, Frankryk en les bes Skotland en die Aussies. Ek is wreed ontnugter, weereens net soos met die skandes van Loftus en Twickenham. Elke Boknederlaag beteken ook 'n nederlaag, pyn en lyding vir die ondersteuners. Die ergste is, ons sit magteloos en toekyk hoe hulle sonder stamp of stoot boedel oorgee. Dit noem ek as ondersteuner nou "selfmarteling" in 'n erge graad en dit gee nuwe betekenis aan masochisme. Wanneer die begeerte my weer pak om na 'n Bok-wedstryd te kyk gaan ek dit hand en tand baklei en liewers gras-sny of fliek of iets. Hoe verlang ek nou skielik na die dae toe Bok se kind tot die bittereinde gefight het vir 'n oorwinning, al was 'n nederlaag hoe onafwendbaar. Nou vra dieselfde 'trotse" verwaande en verslaande onderpresteerders, onbeskaamd vir kalmte en nog 'n kans. KALMTE! NOG 'n KANS! Magtag, hoe arrogant en naief kan 'n mens wees. Dan sê onse Trainer Dolfie hy het geen berou nie en dat hy slaggereed is vir 2007. Bid jou dit aan, "no regrets and ready to go it again". Nee boetie, "read my lips", verdomp NEE! As dit van my afhang kom nie een van julle, of ten minste die groter gros van julle nooit weer naby 'n rugbyveld nie, ek wou sê rugbybal maar julle sukkel in elk geval om een in die hande te kry, so dit is nie te moeilik om julle van een te ontneem of te ontsê nie. Julle kan 'n bal gaan koop, maar vernuf, verstand, guts en magic kan jy nie koop nie. As daar nie gefire of bedankings van top to bottom is om die gemors nou reg te stel nie, oorweeg ek dit ernstig om as ondersteuner te bedank. Die laaste paar jaar se geploeter raak nou katestrofies en neig na 'n ramp, as dit nie alreeds een is nie. Ek is bankrot ge-ondersteun, my smal skouers en beentjies kan die las nie meer vat nie. Nooit sê ek, nooit weer nie, totdat ek my vir die soveelste keer om die bos laat lei en my swakkere wil toegee aan die drang en ek my weer voor die kassie begewe, en dan, die skok, die teleurstelling. Ek dink en sê dan onbehoorlike en onvanpaste goeters in vreemde tale. Ek dink ek en ons rugby is in die moelikheid by tannie Poppie, soos 'n vriend van my dit baie mooi sou stel. Daar word nou gewonder en gevra of Mallett nie maar moes gebly het nie. Miskien sou dit beter gewees het, om die waarheid te sê enige iemand anders sou beter as Dolfie gevaar het. Van Mallett gepraat, is ek dalk moedswillig as ek reken hy het met 'n span geploeg wat deur sy voorganger Carel Du Plessis gelanseer is, en waarvoor hy die eer ingeoes het. Onthou hoe goed en met hoeveel drieë daardie span aanvanklik onder Mallett gevaar het totdat hulle sodanig afgerig is na sy hand dat hulle beswaarlik 'n drie kon druk teen die einde van sy era. Nog iets wat erg opgeval het is die verbeterde spel van spanne wat sonder hulle "Bokke" moes klaarkom tydens die Curriebeker toernooi. Die Leeus se nuwe twee senters het 'n groot verskil gemaak en selfs wanneer Pretorius vervang is met Nel Fourie kon jy duidelike verbetering waarneem. Die Blou Bulle is ook 'n sprekende voorbeeld. Miskien is die verkeerde outjies saamgevat Australië toe. Al vir eers, en niemand, ek ook, is nie bo kritiek verhewe nie. Koos Carelse |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas Maak Heyneke Bokbreier Die eerste stap om SA-rugby reg te ruk is om vir Rudolf Straeuli te pos en vir Heyneke Meyer as hoofafrigter aanstel. Hy moet dan besluit wie hy as mede-afrigters wil hê. Heyneke Meyer het wondere verrig met die Blou Bulle en kan dieselfde doen vir Bokrugby. Bokrugby het agteruit gegaan vanaf Straeuli se aanstelling en sy spankeuses was swak. Sy medekeurders moet ook die trekpas kry, asook die president van SARFU, Silas Nkanunu. Morné du Plesssis, Francois Pienaar, Nick Mallett, André Markgraaff, Naas Botha, Jake White, Chester Williams en Louis Luyt moet betrek word om Bokrugby reg te ruk en daar moet 'n groter klem op sewesrugby geplaas word om spelers se visie spoed en balvaardighede te verbeter. Met spelers soos Schalk Burger, Joe van Niekerk, Jean de Villiers, Brent Russell, Derick Hougaard, Jacques en Geo Cronjé, Pat Barnard, Aswin Willemse, Enrico Januarie, Gary Botha, Earl Rose en Leon Karemaker is daar geen rede hoekom ons nie die volgende Wêreldbeker toernooi kan wen nie. Johann Loubser |
|
|
|
Hi Lucas Blerrie moeilik Hoe sê ons nou, wie sal ons ondersteun, en kan ons rerig op die draad sit en niks voel vir iedereen van die spanne wat dit gemaak het tot in die eindstryd nie. Miskien moet ons maar net terugsit en vertrou ons gaan 'n goeie stryd in 'n onbevange gees en sonder oogklappe aanskou. Hier en daar kan daar dalk van ons, ons verkneukel in iedere span se ondergang of sukses. Self dink ek die Ausies gaan die pyp rook, alhoewel Engeland al die regte dinge binne en buite die reels regdoen en kan wen, maar die A usies gaan nie soos die Hane kapituleer nie en hopelik reen dit ook nie. Die Ausies het my laat lekkerkry op die manier wat hulle verdedig het en in die eenvoudige manier wat hulle die situasies gespeel het. Simpel rugby wat werk nê, en wiet gesê rugby moet gekompliseerd en "rocket-science" wees? Geluk aan die wenspan, met so 'n bietjie suurgeit van my kant. Koos Carelse |
|
|
|
Copyright 2003 Rugby Forum. All rights reserved. This e-mail may be freely distributed, provided that the document is left in its original form. Submissions are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect that of the editor or owner. |
