The Ruckers Forum

Forum » Rugby » General Stuff » Experience versus Rookies
Login to reply
 
 
 
3296 Topic: Experience versus Rookies
mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6510
Experience versus Rookies
December 29, 2012, 07:11:30

1995 RWC winner....experienced.

 

1999 RWC winner....experienced

 

2003 RWC winner......very experienced

 

2007 RWC winner....very experienced

 

2011 RWC winner ...very experienced.

 

Teams get better until they hit a brick wall. When that happens, change is forced. But until that point, the core team is kept together and a few, very deserving  newbies are phased into the team.

 

Nobody starts with a team of newbies, because the coach knows confidence will implode and his job will quickly be at risk. Can we come up with one team which has  won a major championship without an experienced core....methinks not.

 

So let's get real. Our problem in 2012 was too many new faces, only one of whom became an assured starter. By the 4N home series and YE tour Meyer had stabilized his team and results improved significantly.


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10305
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 29, 2012, 08:48:19

Experience is a requirement for initial success  - but ultimately it implodes   badly.   Experience has two bad elements to it, namely -

  *   experience causes havoc ultimately and no team has ever won successive WC's because it becomes the only real norm for selection `-  coaches are afraid to drop under-achievers because of fear of the unknown;

 *   quality of performances deteriorates the older players become since they feel assured that irrespective of what happens and what they produce they are assured of selection.

Both deficiencies hit SA badly in 2011 and the end result is that we now have to start building a new team for the next WC.   What made it worse is that most players left the fold because they were either too old to continue playing or they wanted to optimise the limited playing time left to them by accepting better-paying foreiggn contracts.

That left a relatively small number of expereenced players for Meyer to look at and the problem was that it was that the few experienced players left let the team down even worse than the newbies did.    We only have to look ar the average to poor performances of the so-called experienced players to realize the magnitude of the problem faced by Meyer:-

*    Kirchner was ar best average insofar as performances is concerned;

*    De Villiers was average - at 13 in fact poor;

*    Francois Steyn produced nothing this year

*    De Jongh was a major flop at center - not only in tests - but also in Super 15

*    Morne Steyn was a rank disaster;

*    Hougaard was so bad at scrummie - that even Meyer found it necessary to replace him

*    Spies had the distinguished record of playing for ten minutes in each game and vanished from sight; 

*    Steenkamp was poor in the one test and average in the other

*    CJ van der Linde was a major disaster and should never have been selected

The above had an equal if not a more major role in the under- performnces of the Springboks this year - the best that can be said about them is that they were even worse let-downs than some of the new players selected.  Meyer himself said that he made major errors in selection and some of the above are really prime examples of players that should have been bundled out of the team earlier rather than later.

Meyer also selected some real incompetents as new players and drop them soon enough.   Exmples of these are Greyling, Werner Kruger, Engelbrecht, and Jantjies.

In view of the fact that the more experienced players were under-performing and is likely to continue to under-perform in 2013 - there is one reality we have to face - and that is that we cannot rely on experience only as a norm for selection.   It can play a role - but should only be used if contenders for selection are on par in the 2013 Super Series and only then should an experienced player be picked ahead of an inexperienced one.   

Unfortunately that is a reality of life now and I think that the only realisitc norm should be performances on a sustained basis in the coming Super series  - nothing else.

       


mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6510
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 29, 2012, 18:45:49

Mike most of that has nothing to do with the topic.....much more to do with your biases. You are rivalling Sapp these days.


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 7589
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 29, 2012, 19:02:38

 And in 2012 experience delivered all of 57% - you must be proud!!!

Hey here is a plan, lets prolong the pain for a further year and lets make sure we select Kirchner, Habana, Jean, Morne, Pienaar, Steenkamp and CJ in 2013 and better still lets bring back Fourie at 13, du Preez at 9 and throw in Bakkies at lock with Schalk and Smith as loosies - that should please you no end Moffie!!!!


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10305
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 29, 2012, 19:35:18

Mozart

You are wrong in this case.   I support the concept that experience is an asset - but I also look at other aspects of the game performances.   Experienced players have an obligation to lead the way in performance to justify their selection.   They should not use their selection based on experience to avoid acceptable performance requirements and should earn their selection.

Their is in sporting parlance a saying - form is temporary, class is permanent.   Certaiinly true -   but that saying is often used  out of context to cover up continuous faitures over an extended period.

Now lets get back to my comments - and my deduction that to a large extent the experienced players failed in 2012 and they were deficient in many respects.   I mentioned most of the experienced players .   Most of them had an average to poor performance record - average player performances are not really expected - since they have to set an example to new players coming into the team.

You may differ on how you see the performances - but I think that there can only be marginal differences - since none of the players mentioned can really be described as good enough for automatic future selection based on experience.   I am convinced that experienced players must not rest on their laurels and that they still must earn their places in the team based on merit     

 

 

 


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 7589
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 29, 2012, 23:01:33

The only experienced players worthy in the Bok set-up moving forward are:

Habana, JP, Frans, Pienaar, Beast, Bismark, Jannie, Bekker, Louw, Brussouw and Alberts

 


mozart

Status: Rugby Legend
Posts: 6510
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 30, 2012, 07:25:24

So now Habana is worthy, when 4 months ago you said he was "done". What a laugh. As are your conclusions......you have nominated 11 experienced players. Add Jean and Lambie who by now is certainly experienced and you have almost a full starting team.

 

In fact you have nominated pretty much Meyer's starting team if there were no injuries. Keep putting your foot in it!


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 10305
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 30, 2012, 07:52:58

Saffex

I do think that Francois Steyn under-performed in 2012 and that - unless he up his performances  should not be an automatic selection.   Brussouw had a disastrous year - both from anjury and performances perspective - and unless he really up his Super 15 performances in 2013 drastically, he is out of contention.

I did not mention the props, Alberts  and Bismarck in my assessment of under or non-performers  since I think they performed very well in 2012. 


Denny

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1519
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 30, 2012, 09:29:21

"So now Habana is worthy, when 4 months ago you said he was "done".......and that his "time was over" and that MJoke-ou was to replace him. There was no mention of Habana being out of form and that he be given time to play himself into form at a lower level.. In several posts he dissed Habana.....there was a permanance about  sending Bryan, player of the year into retirement. Shotgun has lost all credibility...as a matter of fact if hypothetically he'd be in charge of the Boks, heaven forbid, then he'd be even worse than a combined Straueli/ PDV combo.....he'd have a squad as big as Rudolph and a shotgun of a mouth like PDV.


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 7589
RE: Experience versus Rookies
December 31, 2012, 17:40:53

Moffie and Denise, how many more times do I need to tell you thick pricks that at the time I made the call on Habana he was playing poor rugby and looked shot - it was common knowledge idiots

But when he came good, I conceded I was wrong and that he deserevd to be retained - get it - I suspect not for in a few weeks time I'll be told by you idiots that I called for Habana's head.

You really are two stupid pricks - change the record for pity sake


Leave a reply:

You need to be logged in to leave a reply.
 
 

From The Sideline