RugbyRebels

So, what's gone wrong with them? They've plummetted to fifth in the WR rankings, after being a consistent presence in the top 3 for almost 8 years after winning the 2007 RWC. In fact, they started the decade as World Cup holders and now they're losing to fucking Italy.

There's going to be a pretty brutal review at the end of the season, so let's beat them to it. What are the solutions for the team?

Getting a better coach would be the most obvious solution. Johan Ackermann would be worth a go, based on SR performances.

Issues:

1. Succession planning - what were the Springbok succession plans? Where was the continuity in building the next set of coaches and the next set of players?
Successive coaches have shown a reluctance to move on from stuff that doesn't work any more (kick-and-chase, for example, was found out by the time the 2009 Autumn Internationals started, and it saw the Springboks lurching around Europe getting beaten up and bullied by the Irish and the French, as well as Leicester and the Sarries), expecting it to keep working forever. You can use it as a core, but you just can't keep relying on that, and that alone. It's also stunted the growth of talented young players, because they'd find their pathways to test rugby blocked by formerly-great veterans contributing dick-fucking-all on the field like Victor Matfield - which leads to:


2. Selections - what is the selection process? Have the concessions made to select overseas-based players hurt South African rugby?
Were seeing more and more young players move overseas, while the bulk of the veterans are playing for French clubs. Guys like Francois Louw, Bryan Habana and Duane Vermeulen could all offer loads to young guys coming through the Currie Cup and stepping up to Super Rugby, but instead, they're knocking about in Europe, enjoying British and Euro dollars. We're also seeing guys in their prime fucking about in Europe. Hell, Franco Mostert signed with Lyon just as he cracked the Springboks. Stephen Kitshoff fucked off to France before he got an overdue cap. What is this saying about South African rugby? The requirements for the captain to be based in South Africa also reeks of being a half-measure. Go big, or go home. Stay in South Africa, or fuck off.

The buck stops with the SARFU, obviously. Coetzee hasn't been getting the support from the administration he requires, nor the respect from the players he deserves. But, while I agree there are pressing issues within the South African set-up which need addressing, I think once again too much is being read into results in a post-World Cup year. The emphasis now is on rebuilding. Come World Cup time we'll see the Boks back to their best, and the Wallabies and probably France too. So long as they keep getting up for World Cups - most of the time, at least - I don't think any of the traditional powers of the game can be written off. The loss to Japan notwithstanding, the Boks were quite possibly the second best team at last year's RWC and certainly gave the All Blacks their toughest work-out. If we go back to the beginning of this decade, after the Boks had been thrashed by the Kiwis and Aussies, then humiliated 53-3 by England, the pundits were saying precisely the same thing about them. & it all seemed confirmed after they failed to progress from the QFs in 2003. But what happened in 2007?

NB: If this seems inconsistent with my 'Fall of France' post, I was mostly just questioning why France's slump hadn't received more attention from the (English language) press...

The problem for NZ is that if the level of boks and wallabies drops then we will be impacted since these are the teams we play most often.

Yeah, we need a team that plays a radically different style to the ABs in this part of the world that'll keep them honest.

The rate Argentina is progressing that may not be too far off . . .

rowan wrote:The buck stops with the SARFU, obviously. Coetzee hasn't been getting the support from the administration he requires, nor the respect from the players he deserves. But, while I agree there are pressing issues within the South African set-up which need addressing, I think once again too much is being read into results in a post-World Cup year. The emphasis now is on rebuilding. Come World Cup time we'll see the Boks back to their best, and the Wallabies and probably France too. So long as they keep getting up for World Cups - most of the time, at least - I don't think any of the traditional powers of the game can be written off. The loss to Japan notwithstanding, the Boks were quite possibly the second best team at last year's RWC and certainly gave the All Blacks their toughest work-out. If we go back to the beginning of this decade, after the Boks had been thrashed by the Kiwis and Aussies, then humiliated 53-3 by England, the pundits were saying precisely the same thing about them. & it all seemed confirmed after they failed to progress from the QFs in 2003. But what happened in 2007?

NB: If this seems inconsistent with my 'Fall of France' post, I was mostly just questioning why France's slump hadn't received more attention from the (English language) press...

If the emphasis was on rebuilding wtf was Morne steyn doing in the team in the 4N?

Rebuilding doesn't just involve wiping the slate. You need at least some of the vets to stick around a while so that the newbies can benefit from their experience.

rowan wrote:Rebuilding doesn't just involve wiping the slate. You need at least some of the vets to stick around a while so that the newbies can benefit from their experience.

But they're not, are they?

Like France and Wales and maybe Australia and possibly the Pacific Islands and North Americans as well, you mean? Oh dear, everyone except NZ, Ireland & England is in a slump. Panic stations !!

Because this is more than just a slump, it's a full-on regression. It's not just the noobs that are struggling, but also the veterans that are adding to the list of fuck-ups. In fact, a rebuild implies that the team will start to come together and be more cohesive after a while.

At least the Wallabies have shown some improvement and have now become a much better team than the one that got its shit pushed in by England and the All Blacks at the start of the year. The Springboks on the other hand are lurching from one disaster to another.

No denying the Boks' current woes, but once again, this is a post-World Cup year, they finished 3rd at last year's tournament and gave the All Blacks by far their closest encounter, and we've seen the Boks in this state before, in the early 2000s, but they bounced back to win the RWC in 2007. I just don't get why the alarm bells begin clanging every time SA or Australia lose a few games, while nobody hardly seems to notice when it's one of the NH teams - France over the past 5 years, for example. & strange how all these doom & gloom forecasts get turned completely on their head when the all-important RWC comes around....

cashead wrote:Yeah, we need a team that plays a radically different style to the ABs in this part of the world that'll keep them honest.

I'd love to see the reintroduction of a probable v possibles match again.

canta_brian wrote:

cashead wrote:Yeah, we need a team that plays a radically different style to the ABs in this part of the world that'll keep them honest.

I'd love to see the reintroduction of a probable v possibles match again.

The problem is that these days the coaches would insist on each having a 34-man squad or something.

Anyway, let's do it on the Friday XV thread.