Boks make 3 changes


Springbok coach, Heyneke Meyer, has made 3 changes to his match day 22 which was forced through injury.

The only change to the starting XV sees Pat Lambie come in at fullback for the injured Zane Kirchner.

On the bench Meyer made 2 changes drafting in Werner Kruger for the injured Coenie Oosthuizen and Bjorn Basson covering the void left by Lambie.

Two players that were called up to the Bok squad in the week, Gio Aplon and Dean Greyling does not feature in the match-day 22.

Springbok team:

15. Pat Lambie

14. JP Pietersen

13. Jean de Villiers (c)

12. Frans Steyn

11. Bryan Habana

10. Morne Steyn

9. Francois Hougaard

8. Pierre Spies

7. Willem Alberts

6. Marcel Coetzee

5. Juandre Kruger

4. Eben Etzebeth

3. Jannie du Plessis

2. Bismarck du Plessis

1. Beast


16. Adriaan Strauss, 17. Werner Kruger, 18. Flip van der Merwe, 19. Keegan Daniel, 20. Ruan Pienaar, 21. Wynand Olivier, 22. Bjorn Basson

Facebook Comments


  1. pretty much the way to go, I would have started RP ahead of Hougie as example – Hope Spies raises his defensive game.
    England are going to try something different, they are looking at concentrating more on attack so i expect a higher scoring game than last time.

    England probably looking at bringing in Jospeh and moving Tuilagi to the wing which may give the nokke an opportunity to attack with JdV and Frans in midfield… can’t wait!

  2. Basson over Aplon is definitely a surprise… and WO well again that must be for fear of Frans/JDV getting injured despite Lambie being there…

    Would still go the 5/2 split with a big loosie with Daniels or another LH…

  3. Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 1:02 pm:

    also no fan of a winger on the bench – I would rather have a all rounder that can play wing/FB or centre/wing.

    However Basson is the type of player that reads a game well and pops into the right place at the right time to score tries! And there are not many better in the Air as Basson. Always been a fan!

    if you have issues with his defense then before you say anything 1st talk about the elephant in the ro8m :whistling:

  4. Hougie fortunate to start at 9.
    Eben maybe less so – I think it’s because
    Flip is a better sub/impact.
    Still not a big fan of Meisiekind and Daniel.

  5. I think Aplon would have been a better option on the bench if, like Meyer says, his bench is an impact bench.

    I suppose Meyer is just being ‘fair’ in not selecting a new player to the squad ahead of some-one selected in the original squad.

  6. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 1:07 pm:

    Nah Basson’s defence is much better… Aplon just has everything that Basson has (bar a few cms) and more… better kicking game (I like a back 3 that can all play 15), pace is the same, finishing is the same, Aplon better from broken play imo and more creative… there’s no reason Basson cannot be trained up to cover 15… but he hasn’t…

  7. I sincerely hope Meyer has explained to Hougaard a few things about halfback priorities and that he isn’t Fourie du Preez.

    There slow ruck ball aren’t going to work.

    I hope Meyer puts Pienaar on at alf time so he can assess the effect of both halfbacks.

    Spies must pucker up and show more physicality.

    I would prefer Aplon, he is more dangerous in attack from deep than Basson, a better defender and more versatile.

    Basson is a good finisher and good under the high ball.

    Lambie should provide us more options on attack.

  8. Reply to biltongbek @ 2:08 pm:

    I think Aplon is better at taking opportunities in open unstructured play. However I think Basson is better to finish off moves from structured play…

    In an ideal world you would start a Basson (in case JPP or Habs is injured) and have Aplon as impact from the bench – thus Aplon a better bench choice.

    Just IMO.

  9. both aplon and basson are more dangerous than the incumbents, but let no-one say this. Remember its test rugby. God forbid we try something out back.

    I’d have


    basson lambie aplon

    But this team might look to play rugby and even miss a tackle. Its just not rugby circa 2012 is it?

    Play it safe boys, and remember to bore us to death.

  10. Liewe fok dude

    You have Francois Hougaard Frans Steyn Bryan Habana and Pat Lambie in the same backline. YOU wanted that.

    He has all two loose forwards who are runners in Spies and Alberts and Bismarck and Beast who are fine rampaging runners and suddenly you call this “playing safe”

  11. I repeat

    As the CC finals and RWC finals prove

    No matter what brand of rugby you play… losers brag about how they play the game and winners get the support… and they go home and f@#%^CK the prom queen.

  12. Reply to DavidS @ 7:45 pm:

    and rugby is only supported by old farts and dies a sullen death.

    You fokken dom forwards have had 10 years now of standing with your obese arses in the backline.

    I want 10 years of flair and creativity and spark now.


  13. David, your Bulls only win against teams that can’t front up physically, the Chiefs and Stormers proved if a team can handle the Bulls physicality and organise their defences, the Bulls run out of ideas.

    Do you want the Boks to do the same until they meet an All Black team who can do the same?

    Then we still are only second best.

  14. PS: the same you can say for the Stormers – as soon as a team gets into a lead they have problems turning on the magic to chase a game! Or they really struggle to put a team away ad get that try BP! :shake:

  15. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 10:12 pm: What I don’t get from the Stormers is they socred some of the most incredible tries, last year, I remember a specific try where they started in their own 22, Schalk, Andries, aplon and a number of others all handled the ball and I think it was Jaque Fourie who scored in the end, there were a number of these tries that were simply superb.

    Yet, they don’t look like they want to play that wa, why not?

  16. Aplon is way better than Basson, IMHO (i have to out that in now as a slagged JDV and Habdonna).

    So kicking it is as he is going for height.

    I know Bambie is a wunderkind, like other bloggers pointed out, you cant switch players positions and expect them to perform. Bambie had a shocker agianst the Lions S15 with been out of position 4 times and they scored 3 times from those lapses.

    Dear David,

    South Africa with all its talent and huge player base should be consistanlty the top team in the world. Instead we play catch to countries where populations are like the size of our player base.
    We are not consistantly 1 because we play doff stampkar rugby that is one dimensional and predictable. Relying on a game plan giving away possesion or feeding off mistakes is kak and does not allow creativity which is what we breed out of our stock.

    We should be number 1 but we are not. Why? Please do explain.

  17. I like your moniker for Basson Kevin.
    Bambi Basson has a nice ring to it.

    I also agree that SA should not lose any games with their talent. They should dis-assemble each team they face and they should especially concern themselves with NZ. Historically the record says NZ is better and rectifying that should be HM’s job 1 vs the losing is ok as long as the WC is won.

  18. Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 9:30 am:

    I’m with Bryce and DavidS on the style

    The Bulls showed all their creativity in scoring some scorching tries in their 2007, 2009 and 2010 titles. It was hardly stupid rugby they were playing, how about their final against the Chiefs at Loftus when they put 60 + points on the chiefs, in a FINAL FFS, hardly a team lacking creativity I would say.

    What they did do though, was they earned the right to go wide through hard uncompromising domination of collisions and set pieces. It was solid structures that gave them their success, unlike Cheetahs (and South Africa Barbarians) who score plenty of tries, but LOOSE, and only get to screw the prom queen during their wet dreams at night.

  19. Ja and what I am saying that you do not have to play to entertain style pundits like biltongbek and shields.

    Biltongbek – in future DO NOT EVER refer to those blue horned farts as “my” team ever again… them is fighting words… and I am one of those guys from the Oosrand who believes violence solves problems… you might as well claim things about my mother’s morality… fokkit… Check the avatar…

    But what I am saying is this.

    Rugby is not a game about doing it pretty or stylishly. If it were Fiji and France would contest every Rugby World Cup final and there would be judges awarding style points instead of a scoreboard.

    Rugby is about winning by:

    1. Score tries worth five points
    2. Convert tries for an extra two points
    3. Score penalty goals worth three points
    4. Score dropped goals worth three points

    And you do not have to do it pretty.

    No matter how one dimensionally we have played since 2004 we are the only team that has regularly been able to beat New Zealand. I’m not talking about England’s 2003 flash in the pan or the occasional ones by Australia or France in 2010. We regularly beat them with plain old boring traditional Springbok rugby. Not Ireland with their magical midfield. Not France with their champagne rugby or Australia with their wannabe Crusaders style of running and not Wales with their run them off their feet attack style.


    NZ rugby test match losses since 2004

    ONLY losses were against SA, Aus, France and Barbarians (2009)

    Losses v Aus = 5
    Losses v Baabaas = 1
    Losses v France = 2
    Losses v Boks = 8

    Enjoy the egg on the face…

    The All Blacks may run like little fairy ballet dancers and you may want us to adopt 2001 Brumbies rugby but the truth is the best way to beat New Zealand is NOT to try and beat them at their own game but to force them to try and beat us at ours…

    I repeat

    I don’t give a rats ass about how we play the game I care about winning. Listening to Kiwis whingeing about the way we play just makes me happy because it means they are losing because Kiwis always whinge when they lose. And when it’s as crap a complaint as the way we play the game then they cannot even blame the ref… only their own inability to play our style.

    To suggest we should match them in their game is more Harry Viljoen-esque stupidity…

  20. South Africa has beaten New Zealand more in the past eight years than all other countries combined… because that Baabaas side was in any event half Bok and an NZ B side…

    Smoke that.

  21. Reply to DavidS @ 11:09 am:

    who has the higher winning ratio? SA or NZ? who plays the pretty rugby SA or NZ?

    Can NZ win ugly? I think so!
    Can SA change a game by playing creative if the ugly does not work? SA v AUS in the QF of the last RWC case in point! Not yet!
    I am not advocating radical change, I am not advocating much change at all, just do not shut the door on some creative type players to pursue one type of game plan – mix it up, be able to play any style needed to win.

    Just a thought – but witzh you Oos randers only moerring it into your skulls with a knuckle sandwich seems to work! :Rule 9:

  22. So

    If creativity wins cool go for it.



    F##@%ck creativity
    F*&^ck running rugby
    F&^$ck ten man rugby
    F^%$#$ck stylish rugby
    F*&^ck forwards rugby
    F&^%ck back line rugby
    F^%$ck kick and chase rugby

    The only rugby that matters is WINNING rugby

  23. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 11:15 am:

    had meyer or jake been in charge, we would not only have beaten them, we would have NAAID them, and the winning ration would have been much higher than 8.

    We all know what Jake left Snor, and what Snor left Meyer.

  24. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 11:14 am:

    JT I am not advocating any style either.

    I am saying stop trying to force our players to play a style that you think they will like.

    BTW that record with NZ is 20 played 12 lost and 8 won.

    That can be changed in two seasons if HM really puts his mind to it.

    And if we can play with shields’ sperm spurting rugby then great. Stop adhering like a slave to that. What we need to do is win. To win one looks at New Zealand’s weakness. Their main only and complete weakness for all times and ever has been exactly the one we are accused of. New Zealand DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN B. Never had and never will. Whether it is the Blues, the Saders, Bay of Plenty, the New Zealand Maoris, the Counties Manawaku, the Sevens side or the Under 21 side. Kiwis are taught to play in a specific way from the minute they are born to the day they hang their rugby boots up. THERE IS NO PLAN B.

    So how do you beat them?

    Just like Jake White said…

    You take them away from their comfort zone and make them play in a way they cannot or do not want to. And who exactly is best at forcing their gameplan onto another side? The Boks of course.

    Let me throw you a mindf&^%ck

    In 2007 the Boks gifted the away test against NZ by playinmg a B side.
    In 2011 we did the same
    Our loss in 2004 in NZ was by 2 points.*
    Our loss in NZ in 2005 was by two points.*
    Our loss in Durban in 2005 was by 5 points
    Our loss of 2010 in FNB was by 7 points

    * settles by tries at the death

    As you can see with one or two different results and that record could have been looking way different.

    I stand by what I said.

    We just need to win and it does not matter what style we play. f we choose to play like shields wants us to, we end up like the Aussies in RWC and Reds this season… predictable.

  25. I am not going to suggest HM plays a specific style, but I am going to say I don’t think trying to match New Zealand or the Reds at their own game is an intelligent way to do it… the only time that ever worked was in the famous Karpov vs Kasparov world chess championship matches.

    The only time


    And in any case as 2000 – 2003 England showed (and the Bulls) – predictable does not mean beatable.

    In 2010 we lost games under Snor because we did not have FDP and our top players were burned out and their gameplan was imprecise.

    NOT because we got “figured out”

    So I stand by what I said

    WIN and screw the style pundits

  26. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 11:52 am:


    At the time and STILL he was the best coach in South Africa with the best record as a coach at all levels he had coached at. He has always been successful.

    In 2008 he was literally at the top of his game.

    You know and I know that he would have taken the Boks to a level beyond what De Villiers and his player coaches ever achieved…

  27. You reasoning is like looking at a Mercedes AMG going to a certain speed with a certain type of engine.

    Then someone says imagine that car had been given a turbo and you saying

    Well seeing there never was a turbo on that Mercedes we cannot know for sure it would have gone one better.

    Just look at records and CV’s and you can easily see HM is a far more successful coach than De Villiers

  28. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 11:51 am:

    I am talking to shields as well as biltongbek and Bekke who both think I’m a Blue Bull supporter despite my avatar…

    And I agree with you.

    We should be able to switch to suit the situation at will.

    We have the Sharks and Bulls with their forwards bullying styles of play.

    We have the Stormers with their gritty defences

    We have the Cheetahs and Lions who run at all costs.

    You’d think that we should be able to develop a schizophrenic style that will be able to shift gears up and down at will to suit the situation. Guys who can grind it out in Durban and Cape Town if it is -1’C with sleet and snow and guys who can switch up to turbocharged if it’s a 19’C cloudless windless highveld winter’s day.

    The problem with running all the time is that runners get tired…

    Tacklers who just wait and wait for runners don’t.

  29. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 11:58 am:

    We can speculate based on many non variables.

    PDeV successful age group coach
    Failed at CC
    Failed at Super Rugby

    HM successful age group
    Successful minor CC (SWD)
    Successful major CC (Bulls)
    Successful S12/14/15
    Successful asst Bok coach (under Mallett)
    Coached the most players to be Boks between 2004 and 2011

    Seeing a pattern here?

  30. Reply to JT_BOKBEFOK! @ 12:14 pm:

    Who’d want to let an oke who ruined a successful Valke franchise which was competing with the Bulle and producing players like Adi Jacobs, Tim Dlulane and Ettienne Botha coach a Super franchise.

    He tried at The Spears and even the poor Lions f&&&cked them. He contracted fools like Damon Draghoender and Ismael Dollie and Lawrence Sephaka…

    His one almost try was a disaster because of the players he wanted.

    So HM came in last losing all games in ONE season… his first From 2005 to 2010 the Bulls were in the play offs every season bar 2008.

    If that is what you come up with it’s a little pathetic…

  31. The Bulls have been playing their style of rugby from at least the late 60’s. Forty plus years!

    Over that time they have been the most successful SA team, both locally and internationally. By a considerable margin.

    The other SA teams have had 40 years to work out an effective counter. They have not. Talent and coaches and laws, ebb and flow, but more years than not, the Bulls come out on top.

    Yet people persist in calling it dof, stupid, predictable, one dimensional rugby.

    You should stop and consider the success, over a long period, with different players, different coaches and changing laws. If you cannot grasp that, then the one dimensional thing is your brain power.

  32. South Africa has never fully committed to play like the Bulls.

    They never will either.

    Too many fans that would rather see the Boks lose than play like the Bulls.

  33. And lastly:

    Running rugby is a 2 dimensional game, played on the 2-dimensional surface of the field.

    One of those dimensions is blocked by your opponents and the other is bounded by the sidelines.

    Kicking the ball is making use of the third dimension, the air space above the field. It is unbounded and unblocked. The only limit is your own ability to use it effectively.

  34. Reply to Timeo @ 2:40 pm:

    I disagree… Bulls game markedly changed when they started playing a more total rugby brand in the modern era once HM found his feet and started experimenting by building professionals around him… none more evident was the shift in edge than when he brought in Todd Louden as his backline coach…

  35. Reply to Timeo @ 2:52 pm:

    my point is that if you ONLY kick you are playing a 1 dimensional game, if you only run you are playing a 2 dimensional game and if you can do both effectivly you are playing a 3 dimensional game and add to that the Stormers defense which is a dimension on its own you have a 4th…

    Bulls and Sharks come close to an all round game plan but lacks effectiveness on a regular basis. Stormers are effective but only on 2 dimensions max. What I would like is a BOK side that can do all 4 effectively! HM IMO will be the best man to get them there if given a chance. :wave:

  36. Reply to Timeo @ 2:52 pm:

    Kicking the ball is making use of the third dimension, the air space above the field. It is unbounded and unblocked. The only limit is your own ability to use it effectively.

    And the team that showed the way was the Boks
    in 2009.
    And there is some art involved:
    Correct time, length of the kick and chasing them.
    Also creates room for counter attacks if not done
    I just sometimes wish our teams would rather kick
    OUT more often.

  37. Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 2:56 pm:

    Once they achieved ascendancy and became more experienced and talented than most of their opponents they had more freedom to run. In the tough games, where they were closely matched, it was back to the traditional kicking game.

    The ABs can run like they do because they mostly have more talent in their teams than their opponents. If we want to kick them off their perch we should do like Dawie says and not play to their strengths.

    Literally “kick” them off their perch.

  38. Reply to DavidS @ 11:09 am: Sorry boot, didn’t realize I called them your team, I’ll go sit in the corner for 3 minutes and consider myself severely reprimanded. I am guilt ridden over this But whilst we are clearing the air. I am NOT a style fan, I am however a believer in VARIETY in attack.

    It irritates the shit out of me when I see the SA teams do the SAme thing over and over with slow ruck ball and they expect a different result.

    It irritates the shit out of me when we needlessly kick possession away in the last ten minutes full well knowing a team can’t score against you if they don’ have ball in hand.

    There you have it, you are NOT a Bulls supporter and I WANT variety on attack and NOT kicking the ball away.

  39. Reply to biltongbek @ 6:19 pm:

    Well, he’s not a Bulls fan – for now.
    Next year there will be no Lions.
    He hates the Cape.
    He despises the Guppies.
    He is not overly fond of the Cheetahs
    and is against the Kings.
    Our Dawie has a problem on his hands.

  40. Reply to biltongbek @ 8:37 pm:

    Allesbehalwe. Maar daar is mos baie
    Dawid-boere wie se name met ‘n V gespel
    word: Lang David de Villiers, regsgeleerde,
    grootbaas van Naspers, hofsaak oor SWA ens.
    Miskien het die fout ingesluip toe hul oupas
    gedoop is en die koster nie baie geleerd was
    nie, en toe is al die kinders ook so vernoem.

  41. Reply to Boertjie @ 9:12 pm: Née ek week van die huis af, vat die seen 7h10 Sokol toe en dan begin ek maar week, ek Gaian slap laaaaaat in die sand, maar as hire niemand is wat wil vessels nie, Dan Gaian ek maar na n’ ander site toe.

  42. Firstly DavidS, your response is brillaint. Dem fighting words.

    No one is advocating the Boks loose structure, not play physical or concentrate on defense. Its not either about Bulls rugby or Stomers(who dont score tries) its about varying the attack. Its about South African rugby coming to terms with the fact the Francious Steyns 100kg frame of crash ball does not work any more as it used to.

    You actually make the point with the Chiefs/Bulls game. Look what hapended when they did play attacking rubgy and not just stampkar kick and chase give away possesion rugby.

    The Bulls showed that day what they could do if they embraced and trusted their backline.

    Taking talented players like Sadie or a very good attacking flyhalf MSteyn and not trusting them is a shame. We have great forward domination and not backline. The Naas affect.

    Look what they did when they varied play, so thank-you for highlighting the obvious.

    Reply to Boertjie @ 6:45 pm::pot: the joys of the internet, been able to wind some one up without fear of getting bashed.

  43. Reply to Boertjie @ 6:45 pm:

    Dawie’s Oupa played for Oos Transvaal…

    Dawie already has a Valke hat and short sleeve rugby shirt…
    Dawie will watch Super rugby and support the Valke…

    As he’s always done…

    Just now without a team to support… I will support the SA sides though… except the Kings… with them I will support the Crusaders, Blues, Force, Rebels whoever against them.

  44. Reply to DavidS @ 10:23 am:

    east rand kids have no other option but to align with Bulls. Plus the Bulls have played some great rugby over the past 6 years.

    They have had some great wins and properly dominated and bliksemed some teams. When last did the Boks bliksem anyone? Oz at Ellis in 2008 maybe? rest of the time we win by 4 or 5 against kak teams and lose by 4 or 5 against good teams.

    Not good enough. If you gonna play “winning” rugby then at least be nr1 in the world. Not nr 3.

  45. why can the All blacks whatever style they want and be nr 1 while we have to be happy with watching paint dry every saturday for our 3rd place?

    kak man

  46. Reply to The Year of the Cheetah @ 10:52 am:

    They DON’T play different styles dork.

    Can’t you read?

    The New Zealanders play the same style.

    If you read Kiwi blogs it’s one of their own main gripes about their national team… the simple fact that New Zealand has a massive issue in that their team is a Plan A team with zero variation.

    Kiwi kids are raised from word go on a certain style which is played in school and club and province and Super 15. Their Super 15 sides are generic.

    They cannot play “whatever style” because they are even worse set in their ways than anyone else.

  47. Reply to Ollie @ 12:22 pm:

    Exactly exactly exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

    :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave:

    What is so damned difficult about wanting the Boks to beat them no matter what style of rugby we play… as long as we don’t try and run the Kiwis off their feet and play their game of rugby… because they play it from the minute they wobble on their little boy legs and get a rugby ball stuffed in their hands.

    We need to play OUR OWN WAY…

    And the cool thing is we can play the lot.

  48. Reply to DavidS @ 12:42 pm: time will tell. New Zealand the land of lots of rain and the highest extinction of wildlife in the world, can play tight rugby. Its always fucking raining and they cannot constantly play Island rugby.

    I think we are in for a rude awakening if we think otherwise. Why beat a team by 3 points when you can beat them by 20 on a dry pitch?

    And the cool thing is we can play the lot??? Really?

  49. Kevin

    No they can’t.

    Read their own blog and commentary. It is the main gripe they have with themselves.

    Even the current coach Hansen sad under Henry that their main issue was being able to create variation in the way they play.

    The Kiwis simply cannot play it tight. It is not the way they are taught to play.

    As for us.

    Have you watched the way the Bulls play…/ and the Stormers… and the Lions and Cheetahs?

    All different…

    Our coaches have a lot more to work with than a Kiwi coach in termns of ability to vary play.