SA Rugby "Fans"

After the recent run of poor displays by the Springboks, do you think Jake White should get the boot???

Originally posted by The Coffee Shop Guy
After the recent run of poor displays by the Springboks, do you think Jake White should get the boot???

They should get rid of him ,like our Aussie team should get rid of that Connolly.
Connolly is always looking for excuses as to why they lost ,when plain and simple its his coaching ,you cannot keep blaming the weather (they are professional players who should be able to play in all conditions)nor can you keep switching the team around you need to be settling on combinations as the players dont know if they will be cut or not.
Yeah get rid of both of them ,White has been there to long and its time for fresh ideas .

Originally posted by boarman
They should get rid of him ,like our Aussie team should get rid of that Connolly.
Connolly is always looking for excuses as to why they lost ,when plain and simple its his coaching ,you cannot keep blaming the weather (they are professional players who should be able to play in all conditions)nor can you keep switching the team around you need to be settlin ...[text shortened]... not.
Yeah get rid of both of them ,White has been there to long and its time for fresh ideas .

Could not agreewith you more!!!!! Only problem is with the World Cup so close it would be a huge disruption for any team to get a new coach now, but as you said they are professionals and should be able to cope with it. DOWN WITH WHITE

Speaking of the world cup, i can see Ireland being the dark horses this year, could be good...unfortunatly, scotland are inproving but not by enough. But could be worse, could be england...they are in the same boat as Oz and SA and should find new coaches.

I've never been one to call for coach sacking. How much does a coach really mean nowadays in the professional era?

If the best players in the country are selected and they have enough time to play together and start gelling as a team, what impact does a coach have on a team? Seriously?
These guys are talented professionals - a coach is basically there to make sure they do their drills. Game plans etc. are worked out by a team of experts, including the players and the coaching staff, but when you jog onto that field with thousands of screaming fans around you, I believe a coach means about as much as what color whistle the ref is using.

Everybody calling for the coaches' head when a team has a slump just usually adds to the problems with players getting extra stress on top of non-performance anxiety.


SA rugby has the added 'bonus' of having politicians sticking their noses into a game that is synonymous with 'the white oppressor', so we can't always select the players that deserve to be playing for the country.

Jake White is doing a fine job. Before the European tour he said that he is going to experiment, and he did just that. The losses against England and Ireland means nothing. At this stage all that matters is the world cup next year, and White is doing the right thing to let players like Victor Matfield rest for the world cup.
Next year the world cup will be a different matter. If i can make a prediction i would say the 4 top teams will be France, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia. The team that can beat the All Blacks will win the world cup, and if SA give White a little bit of free reins, the Boks will be that team.

Originally posted by Crowley
I've never been one to call for coach sacking. How much does a coach really mean nowadays in the professional era?

If the best players in the country are selected and they have enough time to play together and start gelling as a team, what impact does a coach have on a team? Seriously?
These guys are talented professionals - a coach is basically there t ...[text shortened]... essor', so we can't always select the players that deserve to be playing for the country.

The coach picks his team,he decides which drills to do,he implements game tactics ,just to name a few things a coach does.

Originally posted by boarman
The coach picks his team,he decides which drills to do,he implements game tactics ,just to name a few things a coach does.

Please.

Not perfectly sure about other sports / countries, but here we have a panel of selectors and these professional players definitely don't need a coach to help with drills.
Game tactics is another thing. The coach is not the only one who decides. He has support staff to help work out and implement plans and the players give their input too.

At the end of the day, game plans mean bugger-all when the team runs on the field and the ref blows the opening whistle.
Hell, at that stage the captain has a much bigger influence on the game.


I sincerely believe the bounce of the ball and the ref has a much bigger impact on team performance than the coach ever will and people calling for the coaches' head after a few bad team performances need to have their heads examined, because they just don't have a clue.

If a coach has a good relationship with the players and is a good facilitator who can 'rally the troops' he's good enough in my book.
In professional sports today that's all you need. The technical aspects have been covered before the players even came under his wing.

Originally posted by Crowley
Please.

Not perfectly sure about other sports / countries, but here we have a panel of selectors and these professional players definitely don't need a coach to help with drills.
Game tactics is another thing. The coach is not the only one who decides. He has support staff to help work out and implement plans and the players give their input too.

At ...[text shortened]... eed. The technical aspects have been covered before the players even came under his wing.

Have you ever played Rugby Union mate and if so ,at what level ?

I am currently still playing and reached provincial level and i find what you have just said as crap.The coach has the ultimate say ,the selectors pick the squad and its then the coach to decide which team he opts for and what positions he plays the players in.
With the drills he does decide on which ones to go through from a series of drills the support staff have picked .
You will also find that the team DOES play to the coaches gameplan and yes the players do contribute to that but its ultimately the coaches choice .
Usually the captain does not have the time to decide on game plans whilst the game is being played ,he does decide on whether you take a shot at goal or go for a try etc.
Also the coach is there to develop players abilities and if he opts with the wrong advice he can hamper a players development.I have seen many times in my career a player with enormous potential just go through the motions under a coach and then along comes another coach and bingo that player takes his play to the next level just from what the new coach says or does with him .
I hope this clarifies a few things for you to think about coming from a player of the game (25 years experience so far)

Originally posted by boarman
Have you ever played Rugby Union mate and if so ,at what level ?

I am currently still playing and reached provincial level and i find what you have just said as crap.The coach has the ultimate say ,the selectors pick the squad and its then the coach to decide which team he opts for and what positions he plays the players in.
With the drills he does decid ...[text shortened]... few things for you to think about coming from a player of the game (25 years experience so far)

I'm South African - Of course I've played rugby.
I played at varsity and club level, does that make my points less valid than yours?

You just proved my points, thanks. I'm talking solely about the game at professional, national level. The lower the level of play, the more influence a coach has.
Players are developed at all levels up to when they are selected to play for their country. I don't believe one man can then develop them much further. Sure, he can be inspirational, charming, innovative, enigmatic and have some influence on the style of play, but at the end of the day it comes down to 15 (or 22 nowadays) talented and professional players on the pitch, on the day.
These guys know what they're doing and I believe they could get the same results without any coaching staff.


Let me sketch a scenario for you: Graham Henry decides he wants to lose the next 5 games, but Ritchie and the boys want to win.
Do you think he would succeed?

I agree with boarman on that. Here's 3 examples:

1. Graham Henry had the same players that the previous coach had. The All Blacks was quickly back on top after he took over.
2. Laurie Mains that took over as the coach for The Lions. After always being at the bottom of the log in the Currie Cup, they won it when he was at the helm. When he moved back to New Zealand the Lions struggled yet again even though they had the same players.
3. Steve Hanson took over as the coach for Wales. Wales went on to win the six nations. He is now back in New Zealand as assistant to Graham Henry.

I think the moral of the story is to get a coach from New Zealand.

Its all irrelevant, the AB's are going to clean up the World Cup next year hands down! I would be suprised if any team scores a try against them during the tounament. We are simply too good for the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Kiwi kid
Its all irrelevant, the AB's are going to clean up the World Cup next year hands down! I would be suprised if any team scores a try against them during the tounament. We are simply too good for the rest of the world.

Now now, the World Cup is not necessarily won by the best team.
The All Blacks have basically been the best rugby team for the last two decades, but have only won one World Cup.

Maybe they are taking a page out of the South African cricket team's book?

I think a good head coach is vital for a successful rugby team. While I think Woodward was more hype than actually good, he had a plan that all of England followed him with and they ended up successful (though he undid all that with a terrible lions tour). Henry is the same at the moment, while alot of NZ didn't really believe in his rotational policy we are all shaking our heads in amazement right now at the depth, and quality of our players. This would never have occurred without good management. While I agree with crowley in some respects in that the best players would go out onto the pitch and could still win, they are only the best players because they have been taught the lessons of international rugby by a good coach, who has managed them efficiently and given them the information to play at their peak. I sincerely believe that a well managed side will always beat a poorly organised side (RE John Mitchell world cup semi, NZ versus Aus).
For me, andy robinson and john connolly have to go (and after the world cup would be great, then I can wipe them off the upsets list)
For me - Jake White has to stay. He has got some really good performances out of SA, but they don't quite have the depth that we have in NZ, and he has had alot of injury toubles with his star players.
For me SA is my major worry come world cup time. Sorry you irish blokes, but you haven't done enough to impress me yet, and you French lack the attacking flair of yesteryear,
But unfortunately, in tournaments you have to be lucky as well as good, and there are 6 good teams out there, so its going to be whos lucky...

Originally posted by Crowley
I'm South African - Of course I've played rugby.
I played at varsity and club level, does that make my points less valid than yours?

You just proved my points, thanks. I'm talking solely about the game at professional, national level. The lower the level of play, the more influence a coach has.
Players are developed at all levels up to when they are se ...[text shortened]... se the next 5 games, but Ritchie and the boys want to win.
Do you think he would succeed?

Why in the world would Grahame Henry want to lose 5 games ?
You have just answered what i thought you knew about rugby .
As for rugby you make a good chess player.