Publications
Partners
Comment: Rob Houwing, Sport24 chief writer
Cape Town – Saturday night ought to reveal reasonably emphatically whether the Stormers played their selection cards correctly after the severe blow a fortnight back of losing their rugged, seemingly indestructible No 8 Duane Vermeulen for the remainder of the Vodacom Super Rugby campaign.
Many experts and, indeed, the spin doctors within the Stormers camp itself have been at pains to mention the “different dimension” his replacement Nick Koster will bring in the semi-final crunch meeting with the Crusaders at Newlands.
Bishops product Koster, 22, once the hottest name on everyone’s lips at a Stellenbosch-hosted Craven Week, remains a first-class prospect of undoubtedly high calibre, especially as the extra athleticism and touch of flair he brings to the party could even turn out to be a blessing against the perhaps slightly unsuspecting New Zealanders.
You have to credit Stormers coach Allister Coetzee, too, for the confidence-boosting stealth with which he announced that Koster would, indeed, be the man to step into the Vermeulen void – notably soon after the latter’s tourney-ending knee injury against the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein.
But was the call actually the correct one? It is a matter this writer, for the record, pondered over for rather longer.
And whilst I have found a definitive answer hard to come by – another feather in the emerging Koster’s cap, for sure – I remain not wholly convinced that removing him from his hitherto successful, impact role off the substitutes’ bench this year was the right course of action.
Astute former Springbok and Western Province captain Tiaan Strauss, I noted this week, lamented the likelihood that the Stormers “will lose a lot in terms of physicality at the breakdowns without Duane; they will definitely miss him”.
Strauss added that while he believed Koster to be “a very good player”, he did not bring the same physical dimension as Vermeulen.
And let’s face it, Super Rugby semi-finals are often characterised by more grinding, attritional, Test-like elements than occur in ordinary season, when the weather also tends to be warmer and drier and thus more conducive to attacking sparkle – an area where Koster’s core strengths as a game-breaker are more likely to come forcefully into the equation.
Remember that the Newlands pitch may be heavy and greasy after several days of rain, and showers, according to the SA Weather Service, remain a possibility during the 80 minutes.
So which alternative “horses” might have suited the anticipated “course”?
I believe that the Stormers – even given that their specialist loose forward options have become rather threadbare at this stage of the campaign, taking into account the long-term injury to experienced battler Pieter Louw -- ought to have at least considered shifting ever-dynamic captain Schalk Burger into Vermeulen’s No 8 shirt.
It would have given them a like-for-like customer in this key slot, with Burger’s ton-of-bricks commitment and industry matching Vermeulen’s in just about every way.
And although specifically aiding the Springbok cause would understandably have been one of the last things on the Stormers brains-trust’s minds at this critical stage of the Super Rugby season, it would have been highly educative to gauge Burger’s showing against top-calibre opposition in a position many feel he should occupy for the country at the World Cup.
The prospect of that positional switch (it is something Jake White sporadically dabbled with) would significantly increase if both currently rehabbing Cheetahs flankers, Heinrich Brussow and Juan Smith, are fully fit and therefore candidates to aid the defence of that trophy in the No 6 and 7 jerseys respectively.
By fielding Burger at No 8, the Stormers would have been in a position this week to entrust Francois Louw with the dedicated open-side flank role, and potentially also keep their customary “mongrel” among the loose trio by asking budding, confrontational young lock Rynhardt Elstadt to serve at blindside flank – the spot he was most accustomed to, after all, before his switch to second-row activity this year.
His vacancy at lock, in turn, could have been comfortably – and comfortingly, too? – filled by Anton van Zyl, that seasoned workhorse who seldom lets a cause down and reminded of his competence by being a shining light in the Barbarians’ Twickenham victory over the Boks at the end of last year.
I know that coach Coetzee and his supplementary staff at Newlands are pretty rigid in their belief that Van Zyl is a “No 5 lock” and that the Stade Francais-bound campaigner – after the 2011 Currie Cup – is thus best employed as bench back-up for the obviously indispensible Andries Bekker.
But too rigid, maybe?
I am just one of those who sometimes ponders whether this fashionable concept of “one athlete and one bruiser” – arguably made so because of the world-famous Matfield-Botha alliance – is a slightly exaggerated principle and “two good locks” hits the spot perfectly nicely, thank you.
Van Zyl doesn’t shy away from the coalface and his presence as an additional lineout option might well have handily boosted this department against the Crusaders: sometimes you get the feeling that there is an over-reliance on Bekker as a source of clean ball by the Stormers and they lose some aura in this department if the opposition really go out of their way to spoil his supply line.
And introducing Van Zyl into the second row would not have meant the pack squandering an enforcer, anyway, because Elstadt would be right at hand at No 7.
I will be extremely happy for my niggling Stormers pack selection reservations for the weekend to be proved wrong.
For I am not for one second disputing Koster’s quality, nor his right to possibly such a career-influencing opportunity in a run-on XV on Saturday evening.
I just wonder if, in the regrettable absence of core player Vermeulen, a slightly different Plan B might have been concocted for the Stormers’ specific needs of this semi-final, that’s all ...
Cape Town – Saturday night ought to reveal reasonably emphatically whether the Stormers played their selection cards correctly after the severe blow a fortnight back of losing their rugged, seemingly indestructible No 8 Duane Vermeulen for the remainder of the Vodacom Super Rugby campaign.
Many experts and, indeed, the spin doctors within the Stormers camp itself have been at pains to mention the “different dimension” his replacement Nick Koster will bring in the semi-final crunch meeting with the Crusaders at Newlands.
Bishops product Koster, 22, once the hottest name on everyone’s lips at a Stellenbosch-hosted Craven Week, remains a first-class prospect of undoubtedly high calibre, especially as the extra athleticism and touch of flair he brings to the party could even turn out to be a blessing against the perhaps slightly unsuspecting New Zealanders.
You have to credit Stormers coach Allister Coetzee, too, for the confidence-boosting stealth with which he announced that Koster would, indeed, be the man to step into the Vermeulen void – notably soon after the latter’s tourney-ending knee injury against the Cheetahs in Bloemfontein.
But was the call actually the correct one? It is a matter this writer, for the record, pondered over for rather longer.
And whilst I have found a definitive answer hard to come by – another feather in the emerging Koster’s cap, for sure – I remain not wholly convinced that removing him from his hitherto successful, impact role off the substitutes’ bench this year was the right course of action.
Astute former Springbok and Western Province captain Tiaan Strauss, I noted this week, lamented the likelihood that the Stormers “will lose a lot in terms of physicality at the breakdowns without Duane; they will definitely miss him”.
Strauss added that while he believed Koster to be “a very good player”, he did not bring the same physical dimension as Vermeulen.
And let’s face it, Super Rugby semi-finals are often characterised by more grinding, attritional, Test-like elements than occur in ordinary season, when the weather also tends to be warmer and drier and thus more conducive to attacking sparkle – an area where Koster’s core strengths as a game-breaker are more likely to come forcefully into the equation.
Remember that the Newlands pitch may be heavy and greasy after several days of rain, and showers, according to the SA Weather Service, remain a possibility during the 80 minutes.
So which alternative “horses” might have suited the anticipated “course”?
I believe that the Stormers – even given that their specialist loose forward options have become rather threadbare at this stage of the campaign, taking into account the long-term injury to experienced battler Pieter Louw -- ought to have at least considered shifting ever-dynamic captain Schalk Burger into Vermeulen’s No 8 shirt.
It would have given them a like-for-like customer in this key slot, with Burger’s ton-of-bricks commitment and industry matching Vermeulen’s in just about every way.
And although specifically aiding the Springbok cause would understandably have been one of the last things on the Stormers brains-trust’s minds at this critical stage of the Super Rugby season, it would have been highly educative to gauge Burger’s showing against top-calibre opposition in a position many feel he should occupy for the country at the World Cup.
The prospect of that positional switch (it is something Jake White sporadically dabbled with) would significantly increase if both currently rehabbing Cheetahs flankers, Heinrich Brussow and Juan Smith, are fully fit and therefore candidates to aid the defence of that trophy in the No 6 and 7 jerseys respectively.
By fielding Burger at No 8, the Stormers would have been in a position this week to entrust Francois Louw with the dedicated open-side flank role, and potentially also keep their customary “mongrel” among the loose trio by asking budding, confrontational young lock Rynhardt Elstadt to serve at blindside flank – the spot he was most accustomed to, after all, before his switch to second-row activity this year.
His vacancy at lock, in turn, could have been comfortably – and comfortingly, too? – filled by Anton van Zyl, that seasoned workhorse who seldom lets a cause down and reminded of his competence by being a shining light in the Barbarians’ Twickenham victory over the Boks at the end of last year.
I know that coach Coetzee and his supplementary staff at Newlands are pretty rigid in their belief that Van Zyl is a “No 5 lock” and that the Stade Francais-bound campaigner – after the 2011 Currie Cup – is thus best employed as bench back-up for the obviously indispensible Andries Bekker.
But too rigid, maybe?
I am just one of those who sometimes ponders whether this fashionable concept of “one athlete and one bruiser” – arguably made so because of the world-famous Matfield-Botha alliance – is a slightly exaggerated principle and “two good locks” hits the spot perfectly nicely, thank you.
Van Zyl doesn’t shy away from the coalface and his presence as an additional lineout option might well have handily boosted this department against the Crusaders: sometimes you get the feeling that there is an over-reliance on Bekker as a source of clean ball by the Stormers and they lose some aura in this department if the opposition really go out of their way to spoil his supply line.
And introducing Van Zyl into the second row would not have meant the pack squandering an enforcer, anyway, because Elstadt would be right at hand at No 7.
I will be extremely happy for my niggling Stormers pack selection reservations for the weekend to be proved wrong.
For I am not for one second disputing Koster’s quality, nor his right to possibly such a career-influencing opportunity in a run-on XV on Saturday evening.
I just wonder if, in the regrettable absence of core player Vermeulen, a slightly different Plan B might have been concocted for the Stormers’ specific needs of this semi-final, that’s all ...
