Planet Rugby Forum

Jensrsa wrote:It will be interesting to see how the Washington backline goes on Saturday after more training time and being more used to what they are allowed to do on the field.

In Washington it was their first test under Rassie, after two practice days, and they stuck fairly rigidly to the game plan. Hopefully conditions on Saturday will allow them more freedom

Jensrsa wrote:

englishchief wrote:Jantjies gonna make AE look bad... then everyone will ask for DDA back.

Sards wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

Great pic Jensra...you are the " Ultimate Springbok supporter "...

Sards wrote:

englishchief wrote:Jantjies gonna make AE look bad... then everyone will ask for DDA back.

Irrespective of his shocking hairstyles...Junktjies passes a lot more than Pollard

ArnoldVDH wrote:I'd just like an honest answer to this question.

We all know how rubbish Coetzee was as the Bok coach. Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder. So we've all been hankering for the return of Pollard to the test team.

However, can anyone seriously say that Pollard would have done better under Coetzee then Jantjies? And this question could be asked of any player that didn't perform under Coetzee.

beachboy wrote:Esterhuizen has earned his shot. In the long term it is all academic. In a year or two that prince of centres Dan Dup will start.

Average Joe wrote:Rassie should start Oupa at #6. He's a very capable player. Strong carrier, hard working on defence and an extra lineout option.

He also covers lock.

Chilli wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

sunnybanana wrote:

saffer13 wrote:

sunnybanana wrote:AE was clearly our best player against Wales and has been mostly excellent all season for the Sharks. Ridiculously improved this year. DDA has been consistently poor now for the last 2 seasons at least and was awful on Saturday. There’s no point in making metres if you’re going to die with, or lose the ball as often as he does. It’s a no-brainer, AE has to start this weekend.

So since losing the ball in contact is the tie breaker here...as mentioned above, AE lost the ball a couple times and ruined a certain overlap is his last (or second last) SR match. One of the times he lost the ball it was in the process of trying to run over the defender pretty much over the try line. By your criteria he should certainly not be the option.

It’s far from the tie breaker but it happening 4 times in one match is not something I can ever remember happening with AE. He’s also simply in better form.

4 Times...maybe hasn't happened yet but when one of the two was with AE practically over the try line and still trying to bounce a player (botched certain try) and then in the same game he also tried to run over another player instead of playing the overlap (botched certain try) but it's different because it's AE

Point is, your argument for playing AE instead of DDA is invalid using the criteria you cited. Ball security and "rugby smarts"

So Yank in the current Bok set up, who would your 12 be and why?

A howling north-wester, a good likelihood of rain.

With those expectations quite firmly on the radar for Newlands on Saturday, Elton Jantjies isn’t exactly going to be operating in most desirable conditions for him when South Africa tackle England in the third Test.

Perhaps that is exactly what Rassie Erasmus wants in the dead-rubber exercise: to gauge whether the enigmatic Jantjies can cut it at the premier level on a heavy surface.

...

The Lions pivot is understandably far more at home in dry, benign, hard-pitch circumstances for his beloved franchise, where best prospects usually arise for him to govern a game in his dynamic, sleight-of-hand style.

Jensrsa wrote:The only thing guaranteed is that Jantjies will be the scapegoat if the Boks lose.

Played on a wet field in Washington with 13 debutants and no established combinations. He got blamed even though Junior lost us the match.

Playing at Newlands, on a wet field, with rookies at 11, 12, 14 and 15 and no established combinations in the backline.

Why wait to rip into Jantjies? Might as well do it now.

Jensrsa wrote:The only thing guaranteed is that Jantjies will be the scapegoat if the Boks lose.

Played on a wet field in Washington with 13 debutants and no established combinations. He got blamed even though Junior lost us the match.

Playing at Newlands, on a wet field, with rookies at 11, 12, 14 and 15 and no established combinations in the backline.

Why wait to rip into Jantjies? Might as well do it now.

Chilli wrote:

ArnoldVDH wrote:I'd just like an honest answer to this question.

We all know how rubbish Coetzee was as the Bok coach. Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder. So we've all been hankering for the return of Pollard to the test team.

However, can anyone seriously say that Pollard would have done better under Coetzee then Jantjies? And this question could be asked of any player that didn't perform under Coetzee.

AC was a crap Bok coach who coached good players to play crap and produced crap results.

To answer your question, Junkies played crap under AC at both the Stomps and Boks. Seemingly the coach who gets the best out of Junkies is Akkerman and to a much lesser extent De Bruin. I am sure that we all hope that Rassie and De Bruin get Junkies to play to the same level as he did for Akkerman.

ArnoldVDH wrote:

Chilli wrote:

ArnoldVDH wrote:I'd just like an honest answer to this question.

We all know how rubbish Coetzee was as the Bok coach. Sometimes absence makes the heart grow fonder. So we've all been hankering for the return of Pollard to the test team.

However, can anyone seriously say that Pollard would have done better under Coetzee then Jantjies? And this question could be asked of any player that didn't perform under Coetzee.

AC was a crap Bok coach who coached good players to play crap and produced crap results.

To answer your question, Junkies played crap under AC at both the Stomps and Boks. Seemingly the coach who gets the best out of Junkies is Akkerman and to a much lesser extent De Bruin. I am sure that we all hope that Rassie and De Bruin get Junkies to play to the same level as he did for Akkerman.

Thanks Chilli.

I'm hoping for an honest response from Sards as well. If that is possible on THIS issue.

assfly wrote:The more I look at that team sheet (the backline in particular) , the more uncomfortable I am with the amount of changes. We started to build something in the first two tests, and now it feels like a semi-new team. We just about sorted out our defensive issues, and now we've got a new fullback, flyhalf and centres.

I can sympathise with Jens. If we lose this, EJ will be the scapegoat.

Chilli wrote:And if he plays exceptionally well?

assfly wrote:

Chilli wrote:And if he plays exceptionally well?

Then that's great, for the Boks. I certainly hope he does.

Chilli wrote: I think that you might find that EJ played poorly against Wales

Jensrsa wrote:Rassie looking for a scapegoat? Playing the best running 10 in heavy weather?

A howling north-wester, a good likelihood of rain.

With those expectations quite firmly on the radar for Newlands on Saturday, Elton Jantjies isn’t exactly going to be operating in most desirable conditions for him when South Africa tackle England in the third Test.

Perhaps that is exactly what Rassie Erasmus wants in the dead-rubber exercise: to gauge whether the enigmatic Jantjies can cut it at the premier level on a heavy surface.

...

The Lions pivot is understandably far more at home in dry, benign, hard-pitch circumstances for his beloved franchise, where best prospects usually arise for him to govern a game in his dynamic, sleight-of-hand style.

https://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springb ... n-20180621

Jensrsa wrote:

Chilli wrote: I think that you might find that EJ played poorly against Wales

Apparently Rassie didn't think so as he only replaced Jantjies after 72 minutes when the Boks were in the lead.

Chilli wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

Chilli wrote: I think that you might find that EJ played poorly against Wales

Apparently Rassie didn't think so as he only replaced Jantjies after 72 minutes when the Boks were in the lead.

Yeah, with a rookie who landed up losing us the test [as you mentioned before]

ArnoldVDH wrote:

Chilli wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

Chilli wrote: I think that you might find that EJ played poorly against Wales

Apparently Rassie didn't think so as he only replaced Jantjies after 72 minutes when the Boks were in the lead.

Yeah, with a rookie who landed up losing us the test [as you mentioned before]

To be fair, if it was Jantjies who'd made the mistakes Du Preez did, the whole of PR would have lined up in double quick time to slaughter him.

Du Preez got of very easy. Those kind of mistakes have nothing to do with being experienced at international level.

ArnoldVDH wrote:

Chilli wrote:

Jensrsa wrote:

Chilli wrote: I think that you might find that EJ played poorly against Wales

Apparently Rassie didn't think so as he only replaced Jantjies after 72 minutes when the Boks were in the lead.

Yeah, with a rookie who landed up losing us the test [as you mentioned before]

To be fair, if it was Jantjies who'd made the mistakes Du Preez did, the whole of PR would have lined up in double quick time to slaughter him.

Du Preez got of very easy. Those kind of mistakes have nothing to do with being experienced at international level.

ArnoldVDH wrote:Du Preez got of very easy. Those kind of mistakes have nothing to do with being experienced at international level.

Jensrsa wrote:The only thing guaranteed is that Jantjies will be the scapegoat if the Boks lose.

Played on a wet field in Washington with 13 debutants and no established combinations. He got blamed even though Junior lost us the match.

Playing at Newlands, on a wet field, with rookies at 11, 12, 14 and 15 and no established combinations in the backline.

Why wait to rip into Jantjies? Might as well do it now.