Jump to content
Stu

Super Rugby 2018

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Mata Hari said:

I would agree the Lions SA most successful team last few years. They just have to figure out why they are not winning finals. Maybe the rugby levels in SA are still just really below par

1. Two of the finals have been played in NZ with the resultant travel lag.

2. The final in SA was mostly played with 14 men.

3. All three were played against one of the best teams of all time.

4. The player drain has hurt the Lions as much as the other SA franchises.

5. NZ has been able to keep their players because of forex rates which are not too unfavorable.

6. NZ refuses to play overseas players in the national team.NZ 

7. NZ can pay market related wages because of SA TV money.

8. NZ franchises work together on standardised team patterns together with the national coach.

9. Player contracts are regulated by the NZRU to prevent poaching.

Actually I could go on and on. We all know what the problems are. We have discussed this an infinitum on this very forum.

my view is, that instead of non stop slagging of the Lions, we should actually praise them for their achievements against the odds

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just a matter of the other team being better, no matter who the players and coaches are.

Just the other day Mitchell was quoted as asking for R90 million for a salary budget which would have given him the largest (by far) budget of all the SA franchises. So he was planning to buy his way to success, not coach his current squad to success.

He's a doos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was lovely having no rugby to watch......except watching yet US pale vanilla male win the PGA reminded me of the AB's dominating everything rugby related......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Lions have brought a new life to Rugby in SA. Unfortunately, you can only do so much when your team keeps getting raped for talent by Europe.

SA Rugby has to change a lot if they want to stop seeing unions go bankrupt. Take a chap like Schalk Britz, he fokkedoff ages ago and the coach is now considering him, if that does not throw fuel on a quota fire then I do not know what will, that shit is why the ANC keep sticking their noses into rugby.

I think it was HM who played Kriel out of position instead of playing Mapoe who at the time was on form and better.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cape Town - The Bulls have reportedly already started their search for a new head coach to replace John Mitchell.

It appears a foregone conclusion that Mitchell will leave the Bulls, with several reports indicating that he will become England’s new defence coach, bringing a premature end to his tenure at the Bulls as his contract was due to only expire at the end of October 2019.

Afrikaans publication Netwerk24 reported on Sunday that the four coaches being lined up by the Bulls are Jimmy Stonehouse, Victor Matfield, John Dobson and Hawies Fourie.

Stonehouse is the Pumas’ director of rugby and head coach, having recently returned from coaching the Toshiba Brave Lupus club in Japan.

Matfield, a former Springbok lock and Loftus Versfeld legend, spent time as the Lions’ assistant coach last year, while Dobson and Fourie are successful coaches of Western Province and Maties, respectively.

The report added that the Bulls’ new CEO will play a role in naming Mitchell’s successor.

The Pretoria franchise is yet to announce who will replace Barend van Graan as CEO when his contract expires at the end of January 2019.

ALSO READ: Bulls, England in talks over compensation for Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dobson and Fourie are successful coaches of Western Province and Maties, respectively.

 

surely that is a joke.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Stonehouse & Matfield could be a good team to coach the Bulls.

If Mitchell is a bad people person then England is not the place to go, the entire country is very soft and PC.

I think in the last 24 months SA Rugby have probabaly made more money from England buying coaches then getting backsides in seats to watch games. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 7:15 PM, taipan said:

1. Two of the finals have been played in NZ with the resultant travel lag.

2. The final in SA was mostly played with 14 men.

3. All three were played against one of the best teams of all time.

4. The player drain has hurt the Lions as much as the other SA franchises.

5. NZ has been able to keep their players because of forex rates which are not too unfavorable.

6. NZ refuses to play overseas players in the national team.NZ 

7. NZ can pay market related wages because of SA TV money.

8. NZ franchises work together on standardised team patterns together with the national coach.

9. Player contracts are regulated by the NZRU to prevent poaching.

Actually I could go on and on. We all know what the problems are. We have discussed this an infinitum on this very forum.

my view is, that instead of non stop slagging of the Lions, we should actually praise them for their achievements against the odds

Dont be so sensitive re your Lions. There's been no constant slagging. In fact we have all praised them ad nauseam for their wonderful rugby fightback the last few years. Does not mean we should not debate the definition of success or not and why they seemingly dont win in the finals. I am sure had it been bulls sharks or stormers in 3 years finals you would be at the forefront of the discussion re success or not. Furthermore it also points out that SA Rugby is truly not at the same level of for eg NZ rugby and that has also been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum. Does not mean we think Lions are failures, they have been recognised over and over for being the best SA team the last few years. So chill a bit. Lions have reached 3 finals. They haven't won one yet. It's worth a mention.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12 August 2018 at 8:35 AM, Stu said:

Maybe it's just a matter of the other team being better, no matter who the players and coaches are.

Just the other day Mitchell was quoted as asking for R90 million for a salary budget which would have given him the largest (by far) budget of all the SA franchises. So he was planning to buy his way to success, not coach his current squad to success.

He's a doos.

An interesting article on Mitchell.

http://www.rugbytoday.com/elite/closer-look-john-mitchell

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taipan said:

An interesting article on Mitchell.

http://www.rugbytoday.com/elite/closer-look-john-mitchell

“Afterwards, I called them back into the club, where I had a 55-litre keg of beer waiting for them. I told them that no one was leaving until we had finished the keg, and if anyone needed to go to the toilet, he would have to nail his pint first.”

One has to assume that it was the entire squad that was involved. If so, it would have been around 35 players. That means around 1.5l or three pints each. What’s the big fucking deal. Are they trying to tell me that those players normally have less than three pints when they go out for a piss up?

What was supposed to be Mitchell being a doos at the Lions turned out to be a number of players being dose in the end. 

I wonder how long guys like Buurman van Zyl et al would have lasted in modern rugby. 

Fucking snowflakes. All of them nowadays. Players, management, spectators, supporters, the whole fucking lot. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vlagman said:

“Afterwards, I called them back into the club, where I had a 55-litre keg of beer waiting for them. I told them that no one was leaving until we had finished the keg, and if anyone needed to go to the toilet, he would have to nail his pint first.”

One has to assume that it was the entire squad that was involved. If so, it would have been around 35 players. That means around 1.5l or three pints each. What’s the big fucking deal. Are they trying to tell me that those players normally have less than three pints when they go out for a piss up?

What was supposed to be Mitchell being a doos at the Lions turned out to be a number of players being dose in the end. 

I wonder how long guys like Buurman van Zyl et al would have lasted in modern rugby. 

Fucking snowflakes. All of them nowadays. Players, management, spectators, supporters, the whole fucking lot. 

Personally I would have drank more than my share.

the fact remains that everywhere he has coached has turned into a fuck up.

If it was just the Lions it could be a one off, but it shows a trend. On the one hand he is forcing players to drink. And then he is breathalyzing them.

once again, he could be a good coach, but everything in that article points to zero people skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, taipan said:

once again, he could be a good coach, but everything in that article points to zero people skills.

.... which more or less confirms Barnacle’s opinion. 

“Now, for me, Mitchell appears to be the same type of coach that I am. Straight to the point. Just business and nothing else. Just like me, he is probably also a "dwis". In order to make it work, you need a second person in that coaching team to look after all of the other soft fluffy bullshit. ”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vlagman said:

.... which more or less confirms Barnacle’s opinion. 

“Now, for me, Mitchell appears to be the same type of coach that I am. Straight to the point. Just business and nothing else. Just like me, he is probably also a "dwis". In order to make it work, you need a second person in that coaching team to look after all of the other soft fluffy bullshit. ”

Which I have never disputed. However he doesn't come across as the type of person who is intelligent enough to realise that he needs the second person. Probably too arrogant for that. 

Which is the difference between him and Barnacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, taipan said:

Which I have never disputed. However he doesn't come across as the type of person who is intelligent enough to realise that he needs the second person. Probably too arrogant for that. 

Which is the difference between him and Barnacle.

Which is also true. :bounce:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, taipan said:

If it was just the Lions it could be a one off, but it shows a trend

In medical terms this repetitive stuff is also referred to as "pathological"..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 16 Guests (See full list)

  • Forum Statistics

    11,540
    Total Topics
    392,007
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    42
    Total Members
    2,160
    Most Online
    jacktdom
    Newest Member
    jacktdom
    Joined
×