Latest Stories

Latest Stories

  • The Obligatory Personal World Cup Squad

    Finally, the not-so-long-awaited Simply Sean World Cup squad.


    RWC 2.jpg

    Well, we're all making our own group of 31. It's an implied contractual obligation one has as an armchair rugby pundit.

    Below is the Simply Sean South African World Cup squad. Like an international coach, I've chosen not to come out and explain my selections unless I've been prompted by questions. If you do have questions, feel free to ask them (either direct them on Twitter to @SimplySean_ or on the Simply Sean Facebook page) and I will try to answer them on this post.


    Props (5): Beast Mtawarira, Trevor Nyakane, Steven Kitshoff, Jannie du Plessis, Frans Malherbe

    Hookers (3): Bismarck du Plessis, Adriaan Strauss, Schalk Brits

    Locks (4): Eben Etzebeth,Victor Matfield (vice-captain), Lood de Jager, Pieter-Steph du Toit

    Loose Forwards (5): Francois Louw, Willem Alberts, Duane Vermeulen, Schalk Burger, Heinrich Brussow

    Scrumhalves (3): Fourie du Preez, Ruan Pienaar, Cobus Reinach

    Flyhalves (3): Patrick Lambie, Morne Steyn, Handre Pollard

    Centres (4): Jean de Villiers (captain), Damien de Allende, Jesse Kriel, Lionel Mapoe

    Wings (3): Bryan Habana, JP Pietersen, Lwazi Mvovo

    Fullbacks (1): Wille le Roux



     "Don't let Cosatu see this."

    An excellent first question. Well, not really a question, but an excellent point that needs an answer.

    Personally, I haven't been given any directives on the racial composition of my squad. If I were given some, I'd be more than happy to edit the squad so that it complies with them.

     "Apaaarently the team has to have 9 players who wouldn't have been considered white by the Apartheid Government..."
    I think that's an extra two, and I'm not just talking about your use of the letter 'a'.
    Let's work with that then. Siya Kolisi in for Willem Alberts and Scarra Ntubeni in for Schalk Brits.
    There's been some really unfortunate classification confusion around Damian de Allende. If he's considered to be white by whoever would have to do the classifying, then put in Rudy Paige for Cobus Reinach. Or maybe that should be Elton Jantjies instead of Handre Pollard, and boy would that open up a selectorial can of worms on this page.
    No he's not. You were lucky enough to have read the squad early before all mistakes were ironed out. The second Eben Etzebeth has been taken out and Lood de Jager has come in.
    Note that in no way does the fact that I initially included Eben Etzebeth twice mean that I have any overwhelming favouritism towards him, even though I clearly do.
     "Okay, why the inclusion of Morne Steyn and not Frans Steyn? I think Frans has more to offer than Morne, in terms of positions."
    I felt three flyhalves were needed in the squad, and I went with who I felt were the best three for this World Cup with Morne Steyn being one of them.
    Frans Steyn definitely offers more in terms of versatility, but unfortunately for him, I wasn't convinced that he ousts anyone currently in the squad in any of the positions that he plays in. I backed all 3 flyhalves selected ahead of him, both inside centres and both fullbacks (Pat Lambie is in the flyhalf bracket, but he also fills the spot of the second choice fullback).
     "Coach , who is your run on 15 in a final ?"
    Oom, you flatter me so by calling me coach. If I was coach and you were in my press conferences asking questions, I'd probably dedicate a few hours a week solely on being prepared for you (which would be futile, because I never would be).
    Willie le Roux is my starting 15 at this stage. Possibly an unconventional skill set for Northern conditions, but he's the one fullback I want to make a plan with the most.
     "no I mean XV !"
     "Another Question, if Coenie is fit, would you include him before Malherbe. I think a bench with Coenie and Trevor is better."
    The "if" in that question is at least a medium-sized if.
    Since I decided to go with 5 props, I started by going with my 2 best looseheads (Mtawarira and Nyakane) and my 2 best tightheads (du Plessis and Malherbe). Since Nyakane would more than adequately fulfill a role as a 3rd choice tighthead, the space of the 5th prop could be picked on his loosehead playing ability alone. For me, that's Steven Kitshoff. 
     "Don't you think picking the your best 2 players for positions is over. Rather pick your best, cover players / impact players?"
    No, and especially not when your second choice in a position offers more than adequate cover somewhere else.
     "if your team flew with Malaysia Airlines and got 'lost' what would your back up 31 look like?"
    Superb question, Paul.
    It would look quite a bit weaker and it would probably include me on the wing. Hey, after going through the trauma of losing my entire squad, I'm sure the country would be sympathetic in me indulging in a childhood fantasy.
     "Do you really need three hookers?"
    For me, absolutely. While I am interested that Australia have only picked two and I absolutely love the sneakiness of Tank Lanning's thinking that your third hooker in the squad doesn't have to actually be in the squad, I'd still want the option of specialist cover if one of the hookers pulls up injured in, say, the warm-ups.
     "looks like after one Springbok outing this year, you would play Lambie as FH ahead of Pollard. Why?."
    For a start, if it was up to me, Lambie definitely would've started more than one game this year. The Rugby Championship should've been treated as a shoot-out between Pollard and Lambie, instead of just trusting Pollard as an out and out first choice.
    Secondly, Lambie has shown himself to be not just a more reliable option when it comes to a lack of mistakes, he's also been more willing to take more out of hand kicking responsibilities when he starts at 10 (as opposed to the Springboks just kicking off 9 and 15 when Pollard starts) as well as giving effective gainline attacking options.
    It could well just be a question of form as opposed to class dividing the two players on selection, but at this stage, I'd favour Lambie in the north in a very competitive position.
     "Also, do you think Willem has shown enough to warrant a ticket? He seems still in recovery."
    I'm not a doctor, and even if I was, I don't have access to his medical records. I hate to practice armchair medicine. If experts say he's fit enough, then I consider him fit enough.
    If he is fit enough, he is quintessentially the best hard-hitting blindside flanker (as a tackler and a ball carrier) in the country. When all were available, the loose trio combination formed with Louw and Vermeulen was a key component when the Springboks were at their best in this last 4-year cycle.
    If your preferred style of play for the upcoming game demands more of a linking blindside flank, Burger offers that in the squad instead of Alberts. However, if sheer force is what you want for front foot ball and throwing opposition back in contact, Alberts is your man.
     "how did you call the Brussow vs Coetsee one?"
    Marcell Coetzee has transformed his game to be a top fetcher as well as still offering sound blindside flank play. Unfortunately. it sounds like he will sadly be ruled out through injury. If he were available, I'd have him in Heinrich Brussow's place.
  • Australia vs the Springboks: More Gloom Than Doom

    Negatives? Yes. Death knell? No.




    As coach speak goes, “We’ll take the positives” is not just a post-match platitude, it’s one of the most obvious ones of them all.

    Of course people take positives from situations. How awful would life be if you didn’t? Taking positives after a loss shouldn’t be seen as just papering over cracks. It should be seen as obvious practice if you want to even bother getting out of bed and preparing for, say, playing the All Blacks on Saturday.

    That said, after a loss, the negatives are obviously more important because therein lies the why.

    Any cheap teambuilding manual will tell you to build on the positives and work on the negatives.

    With that in mind, the nicest way that you can phrase it after that loss is that the Springboks still have a lot to work on.

    Firstly, no matter what you think of the final TMO decision (this armchair TMO says fair try), that game was there to be wrapped up well before that took place. With a good scrum, forward momentum and a defence that was mostly doing just fine, a team should have all it needs to close out a game properly.

    How did the Springboks botch up following through with a win after being 20-7 up just after half time? Well, let’s start with the most eye-popping statistic. In the second half, South Africa had 21% possession and 14% territory.

    The Australians spent the vast majority of the half with the ball putting the Springboks under pressure. The Springboks kept failing in relieving it.

    There were a few reasons for that and the most important ones were easier to spot. The scrum malfunctioned after the bench came on, David Pocock’s master cameo certainly didn’t help and the open play kicking just flat out didn’t work.

    Everyone loves a bitch at how the Springboks kick. It’s a go-to knee jerk reaction after a loss even for fans that didn’t watch. “Boring old Boks back to their boring old kicking” and all that.

    Usually, if the team’s kicking fails, it should be a debate as to whether the problem was execution or volume. In Brisbane, it was probably both.

    Persisting with up and unders that don’t work can seem like continually banging your head against a brick wall. Bombing high balls against Australian players (who, if they play rugby union, they’ve definitely at least had a look at Aussie rules) can seem like continually banging your head against a brick wall that has a sign on it saying “Warning: banging your head against this wall will be sore”.

    It screams of South African players resorting to a familiar yet very limited comfort zone. If they are going to seriously feature in this World Cup, they’re going to have to work kicking differently. If kicks can’t be contested effectively in the air, then they need to go into space. If the space isn’t there, keep the ball and work the opposition around until it is (unless you’ve organised enough space to run into, of course).

    That’s all easier said than done, but hey, no-one’s ever claimed that winning the World Cup was easier done than said.

    As for straight up exit rugby, that Springbok team looked to be light when it came to getting distance off the boot. Some players must either work on connecting their kicks better or Meyer must seriously think about bringing in players who will kick further. You can be as romantic as you want about running rugby, but it’ll all come to nought if you don’t have some decent clearing kicks to relieve pressure.

    Even with all the minuses from that game, you still have a whole host of singular what ifs to choose from on what could have swung a mighty close game the Springboks way. A missed touch kick here, botching up running down the clock there as well as a touch and go TMO decision which, as modern rugby constantly shows us, will be everywhere.

    You can choose any one of those that would’ve ended up being match-winning, but the truth is that winning is not the only thing. It’s definitely the most important, but it’s not the only thing. Especially in a World Cup build-up.

    Say one of those what ifs did happen and South Africa won, it would be wrong to just take the win without taking the negatives. That would be papering over the cracks.

    The important negatives don’t change regardless of the result.

    As for positives, you can find quite a few without being too desperate in your digging. Some of them were even surrounded by pre-match question marks. All those fetchers in one team? Resulted in turnovers aplenty. Schalk Burger at number 8? Big tick. Jesse Kriel on test debut? Definitely earned another pre World Cup look. Lood de Jager on the back of a long injury? Sen-bloody-sational.

    When you pair the above with what was mostly a fantastic defensive display, a couple of sexy tries and some sound scrumming  from the old guard, you’ll find that the Springboks have plenty of things to build on.

    Losing away to Australia in World Cup year is not a death knell. After all, South Africa lost there in 2007. So did New Zealand in 2011.

    However, it’s now been 3 losses out of 4 test matches for South Africa and none of those games were against the All Blacks. They need to start winning if they want any kind of meaningful momentum going into the World Cup. Just judging a team on World Cup results is going full Straueli. Never go full Straueli.


  • Things We Learned - Round 6 of Super Rugby

    1) The term 'senior player' has never looked more meaningless. 2) Warren Whiteley and his Lions team just get more and more likeable. 3) Don't blink when the Cheetahs are playing. 4) The Waratahs are done warming up. 5) Good thing we have Super Rugby to keep us grounded from all that 6 Nations basketball.


    1. The term ‘senior player’ has never looked more meaningless.

    An early Chiefs red card should have been an invitation for the Sharks to make sure that they keep their cool and spend the rest of the game leaning on the extra man advantage. Instead, they saw the Chiefs red card as an invitation to go down to that level and lower.

    Here’s a lesson for the Rugby’ginners: the term ‘senior player’ isn’t just a cap count. It actually denotes responsibility.

    Frans Steyn’s red card ended up being rescinded and fans will hope that brings an end to his flirting with disciplinary fire. As for the Bismarck du Plessis kick to the face, it’s impossible to overstress just how stupid it was, let alone dirty.

    Surely du Plessis has left the union no option but to take the captaincy away from him. If not, it would show absolutely no respect for the responsibility the position brings.

    As for the actual rugby, after they’d finished concluding the buy one red card get one free deal, the Sharks ironically showed great discipline and got a fine win over a Super Rugby contending team. You can’t get a clearer example of how working as a team trumps having individual stars on the field.

    2. Warren Whitely and his Lions team just get more and more likeable.

    If you needed a South African example of how to lead as a captain to juxtapose the Bismarck du Plessis one, look no further than Lions captain Warren Whiteley.

    With 25 tackles, with so many good carries and so much emotion at the final whistle it was almost palpable, Whiteley set an excellent example that his team clearly followed.

    It was another sucker punch type win for the Lions, again achieved with less than half of the possession as well as territory (which seems to be a type of win that’s getting more and more fashionable in rugby). It’s been a fine blueprint to rack up some wins on tour at least.

    Next up for the Lions is a hapless looking Reds team for a possible third win on tour. If that’s achieved, it would not only be a first for the union, but it would be the joint best return for any South African Super Rugby tour.

    3. Don't blink when the Cheetahs are playing.

    Not only did the Crusaders vs Cheetahs game fall squarely into the great ‘game of two halves’ cliché, it was pretty much also a second half of two quarters.

    The Cheetahs were leading 14-10 in the second half, and unless you’ve accidentally changed the channel from The Bachelor to Supersize vs Superskinny, you’ve never seen anything get so ugly so quickly.

    Point flurries like that can happen if you drop your guard against New Zealand teams, particularly against the Crusaders. Hopefully the Cheetahs tighten up quickly on tour so as not to offer themselves up to their hosts as walking bonus points.

    4. The Waratahs are done warming up.

    Just when the Australian Conference threatened to become a one-Brumby race, the Waratahs came with a timely reminder of just who the champions actually are.

    Michael Cheika’s team offered up some fine rugby and some fine entertainment on a Sunday (which is a day that must surely be used more often to ease up on the viewing congestion). On their day, they play lovely flowing rugby with fabulous running play and the most physical pack in Australia.

    Now they just need Jacques Potgieter to keep the homophobic slurs down to a minimum.

    BONUS POINT: Good thing we have attritional Super Rugby to keep us grounded from all that 6 Nations basketball.

    Who needs all those free flowing try-fests going on up north in perfect weather for running rugby anyway? All those ‘rugby’ players prancing around clicking up the scoreboards and cheapening the value of a try are just a slap in the face to the rugby traditionalists, really.

    Bring on the good old attritional grind of Super Rugby instead. Nothing speaks to the rugby purists better than some wet weather and a bunch of reset scrums.


Would you like to read more?

Would you like to read more?

Blogz on Ballz

Blogz on Ballz

enlarge video
Blogz on Ballz Podcast

Blogz on Ballz Podcast

Awesome Sponsor

Awesome Sponsor

Visit AfricaFoodTraders.com to see our range of wholesale snacks, sauces and ready made meals from around the world.

@SimplySean_ on Twitter

@SimplySean_ on Twitter