Heyeneke Meyer in the Box

Heyneke Meyer when he is watching the Springbok team doesn't seem to be in control to me. His incessant grabbing & ranting down the radio looks like panic.

I like the fact you can see the coaches reactions & to see the likes of Andy Robinson thumping the side of the box is great entertainment.

I have nothing personal against Heyneke but if I was on the receiving end of his rants I would be flicking my eyes up & wishing he would calm down or shut up.

He knows he is being televised - is he just trying to impress or is it just his strange style of management?

I don't get it either. What can he be shouting? "More up and unders!" ?? For all his shouting, nothing changes.

At one point there he was so angrily screaming into the thing after I think a bok knock that he was going red and sweating.

This is not normal. It projects a state of mind that borders on psychotic.

He doesn't seem to have 'a team' around him as say the AB, oz, argie boxes do so its obvious he calls every shot, and doesn't trust others to be part of his equation. This explains a lot of what's happening on the field.

I know what has him so angry...............having to wear that horrid jacket................

I dont think that Walkie talkie works, how many times do you have to tell them to put Lambie on?

Then he blames his inexperienced side for not maintaining the gameplan which was working for sixty minutes. Huh?

Did he really? Maybe the first signs of a player rebellion>?

Meyer's problem may become greater - He doesn't seem to recognise why they lost. If/when they win, he won't know either. Out of his depth methinks.

Bring back PdV!

anotherworldofpain wrote:Bring back PdV!

Taylorman wrote:Then he blames his inexperienced side for not maintaining the gameplan which was working for sixty minutes. Huh?

Thats what he said after match. Cant recall where I saw it. Fact is this pack has about as many caps as Nathan Sharpe so regardless of their efforts you cant expect a pack that experienced to compete with one ranked higher let alone dominate it, even though the Oz pack is fairly tame as well.

They needed other strengths with this pack but same gameplan different pack isnt going to work well.

When I think of hw many caps the AB's have for next week vs SA cant imagine what ours would be like if we had to limit it to less than 120 total. We'd only be able to keep the locks and Vito.

I kind of understand what he means though. The Wallabies were uncharacteristically poor under the high ball, and the SA try came from a misfielded kick, so I know why he thinks it was "working". AUstralia were also running from deep and getting turned over and giving away penalties and didn't have a long kicking game, especially when Genia and Barnes both went off.

I'm sure this says more about Australia's naiivety and lack of depth than any genius about the game plan though.

But it is always true that if you keep kicking it away, eventually the other side will score, especially the Wallabies with so much possession...

Yes but his comments (repeated again today) were the gameplan was going well for 60 minutes. I mean what is the gameplan designed to do if at best it provided a 10 point lead for a short period, including one try from an Oz botch up.

I mean how can anyone say their gameplan is going well for that long when it returns hardly a thing?

anotherworldofpain wrote:I kind of understand what he means though. The Wallabies were uncharacteristically poor under the high ball, and the SA try came from a misfielded kick, so I know why he thinks it was "working". AUstralia were also running from deep and getting turned over and giving away penalties and didn't have a long kicking game, especially when Genia and Barnes both went off.

I'm sure this says more about Australia's naiivety and lack of depth than any genius about the game plan though.

But it is always true that if you keep kicking it away, eventually the other side will score, especially the Wallabies with so much possession...

AWOP, it's fine if the kicks worked against the wallabies, but then what did we do when we got there?

Absolutely nothing.

It doesn't help only one aspect works because the Wallabies caught poorly, you need to be able to do something with the ball, the decision making is poor to be polite, The tackle that AAC made where he took two runners out was simply because again the runner ran the support runner into the touchline, he didn't straighten and the support runner didn't come inside for the pass. It comes back to lacking the ability to read the game.

ou put any other team in that scenario where they have an open tryline and one cover defender and they would score.

It is once again the scenario where the ball doesn't go through the hands, players aren't trying to put a support runner into space, the support runners don't know where they should be.


They are poorly coached, it is no use you focus on the set pieces and you don't have any attacking nouse.

Hougaard never saw the ball, Mvovo was just as predicted poor under the high ball, his positional play was poor and he knows only one thing, when you have ball in hand run till you get tackled.

Is Mvovo the anti-Morne?

Perhaps if they are generically engineer together they will make a good rugby player?

anotherworldofpain wrote:
Perhaps if they are generically engineer together ...

I'm glad your English hasn't progressed too far, that's a great one

I reckon Meyer is likely to get several attacks this coming weekend.

AlastairW wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:
Perhaps if they are generically engineer together ...

I'm glad your English hasn't progressed too far, that's a great one

Sorry! What should it be?

GENETICALLY engineered.

Oh no! I have been using this word wrong everywhere. IT's some disaster.

That's a classic malAWoPism that is