The Probables team that played the Possibles after main trials at Woodburn. Pmb on Tuesday 20 May 2015.
| PROBABLES | POSSIBLES | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A. PEVERELLE (Hilton) | 1 | A. SONGCA (Michaelhouse) |
| 2 | M. WISEMAN (Michaelhouse) | 2 | H. PRINSLOO (Westville) |
| 3 | B. VAN ROOYEN (Glenwood) | 3 | C. KLOPPER (Glenwood) |
| 4 | S. QOMA (Westville) | 4 | C. JACOBS (Pionier) |
| 5 | J. SESINK-CLEE (Michaelhouse) | 5 | A. EVANS (Clifton) |
| 6 | K. XABA (Glenwood) | 6 | K. NICHOLSON (Westville) |
| 7 | D. MULLER (Westville) | 7 | T. DIXON (Kearsney) |
| 8 | M. PALVIE (Glenwood) | 8 | S. DE MARIGNY (Hilton) |
| 9 | M. DAHL (Hilton) | 9 | R. VD WESTHUIZEN (Pionier) |
| 10 | B. PRETORIUS (Michaelhouse) | 10 | J. BOSSR (Glenwood) |
| 11 | T. MAHLANGU (Westville) | 11 | S. BUTHELEZI (Westville) |
| 12 | J. TEDDER (Kearsney) | 12 | D. LOFTUS (Hilton) |
| 13 | D. DU RANDT (Glenwood) | 13 | L. FURNESS (Michaelhouse) |
| 14 | K. MUNANGI (Maritzburg College) | 14 | F. GOBLE (Michaelhouse) |
| 15 | V. FOSTER (Michaelhouse) | 15 | J. MORGAN (Glenwood) |
| 16 | 16 | L. MAZIBUKO (Michaelhouse) | |
| 17 | 17 | G. COETZEE (DHS) | |
| 18 | M. NTULI (DHS) |
Michaelhouse 8
Glenwood 7
Westville 6
Hilton 4
Kearsney 2
Pionier 2
College 1
Clifton 1
DHS 2
The KZN Craven Week team is pretty much finalised and its just a question of time before the team is announced.
Trialists had to endure the sweltering heat in Pietermaritzburg in order to claim a place in the final game.
Here are a few thoughts:
PD players
Today really seemed to expose the shortage of PD depth in KZN. Missing in action were : Mchunu, Guma, Mukendi and Sadiki, which in a sense helped to bring this concern to the fore.
Keegan Nicholson (Westville)
Well he didn’t arrive at trials as a favourite and he looks unlikely to be selected for Craven Week but he left a lasting impression due to a good performance as a specialist openside flank. The Craven Week coaches would have gained good valuable from Nicholson’s ever-presence at the breakdowns. Here the short openside flank made a nuisance of himself, spoiling what otherwise might have been good quality ball, sometimes slowing the recycling process down to snails pace. KZN will in all likelihood go to the soggy fields of Stellenbosch without a genuine fetcher themselves but chances are they will come up against a few during the three game youth week. The lessons that have to be learned amongst support players slash cleaners are get to the tackled ball faster and make sure you clean out properly.
Lineouts
Well they were woeful to say the least. A lot of work is needed here. Not knowing the jumpers is a challenge at trials which is bound have an adverse effect on communication and timing. However a lot of throw-ins were off in accuracy as well. It’s an area of the game where KZN cannot afford to be anything less that perfectionists in terms of timing of the jump and precision of the throw.
Scrums
There seemed to a focus on mobility over size in the frontrow, resulting in the two big boys at prop from Westville who at one stage during the season looked like bankers for wet weather rugby, being overlooked. There were scrums that buckled again. Scrumming doesn’t have to be an Achilles at Craven Week.
Dillon Bryan (DHS)
He was probably the pick of the players who wasn’t called back for the Possibles. He had a terrific day at fullback and can be proud of his performance.
Ball carriers
Apart form Marco Palvie and Andrew Peverelle, there where not enough signs of players being able to dominate collisions and generate front-foot ball, so attention to this aspect is needed.
Let the cohesion do the talking
The Craven Week players have to realise that if the team does well, they improve their chances of being noticed and credited. Each player has to weigh up his own individualism in the context of how it will contribute to the team’s objective of winning games. In other words they have to realise that making a support player look good with a well executed offload is often just as valuable as a bit of individual brilliance, with a lower percentage risk rate of failure attached as well.
@Buffel:
Almost spot on!! Can you do my Superbru picks?
Team is up on another thread guys.
@GreenBlooded: seen the side gents- no real surprises. my team almost dead right.
@star:
I smell another conspiracy theory brewing here…….
@star: when size and strength is very important at Craven week, I cannot understand why the 2 props from Westville have been left out completely. They have dominated the local scene, have size and grunt. It is about combo’s so what better than an all Westville front row. Anyway, when the dust has settled there are going to be a few surprises. Roll on tomorrow.
@GreenBlooded: Several points
1) Please find the reference where I was ” on the Anti-Glenwood bandwagon crowing about skewed selections…” As usual you assume too much.
2) I will be the first to apologize to Messrs Dames and Pjnheiro but only as Beet says when the finalized teams are out. Again you are a little premature. I sincerely hope this is not a general problem of yours
3) I personally find it strange that the” perceived” best front row in KZN might not be represented at CW. 5 tightheads in 20 minutes against Menlopark and Dale is enough evidence for me. I hope that Prinsloo flys the flag high for himself and his mates.
4) you are on record as saying that the reason that a number of 2nd team players made CW in a particular year was that said team would beat most 1st teams. Is that your contention this year or do you throw out random reasons as apologists are want to do. I have seen first hand the horse trading that goes on in certain codes and that has everything to do with the positioning of particular schools. I have also seen first hand how negative perceptions can destroy the very fabric and confidence in the system and how some boys just give up. Forgive me if I do not fight for the ” big” picture.
@Side Line View: “Is it an interesting statement of the lack of depth at college that only 1 boy made the final 2 teams? ”
Ummm, ok then … Perhaps I need to join Greenblooded in the front row. That’s going to hurt some, I am a 98 pound weakling, GB is going to use me as a club to hit NW_Knight …
@Gungets Tuft:My comment wasn’t a dig at all, I was referring to recent comments about how College dominated in the 80’s but recent stats show the rest have caught up. Kearsney have won 4 of the last 5 matches and have only ever won 10 so a big swing in school strengths in last decade.
@beet: Or the GW 2nd team is better than the 1st team
@NW_Knight:
Huh??? Slowly please. I was front row.
@GreenBlooded: Hmmm…29 go to trials, 7 in Poss & Prob – maybe 14 in CW?
@Side Line View: Just in case that’s a dig, all my objections were around a single position and player who was dumped into a secondary team at first trials and not invited back to trials. I am not the only one who thinks that the selectors have missed something. In my original view I thought that there were 3 boys that had a shot at CW and AW. One is the man I referred to, the other is injured (Guma).
As far as depth is concerned, look at the provincial results. I can drop them in here if you would like, but if you are interested I suggest you visit
http://www.maritzburgcollege.org.za/sport/sport-fix-results/results – they’re all there (Glenwood won 7/10, KES won 6/6 and 2/2 against House as well in 8th and 9th teams, Kearsney won 6/8)
If you mail Beet I am sure he will be willing to put a school jersey onto your avatar.
@star: @GreenBlooded: I think what’s going to please the Glenwood supporters and make the rest not so happy is possibly as many as 5 maybe even more 2nd XV players in the CW-AW mix. Although it’s probably not wise to do the proportions test and rather focus on the individual ability, form and youth week criteria, suggestions will again surface that the Glenwood 2nd XV is better than the 1sts of other KZN schools.
But maybe we need to wait for those finalised teams to be published first before the expressions of delight or anguish
@h2o: Sorry my last comment was meant to read Loftus at 12. I agree with what you say regarding the 12-13 make up but from trials it was apparent that Tedder likes to challenge the defence with ball in hand and he is quite quick, so looks better suited to 13 with a distributor at 12. Loftus had a nice all-round game and even Holtzhauzen an option, Furniss too because he has good hands. But definitely a big 12 is preferable.
@star:
Weren’t you one of the okes on the anti-Glenwood bandwagon crowing about skewed selectors who were bound to serve up teams dominated by undeserving Glenwood players? What do you say now? I think some apologies to Messrs Dames and Pinheiro are in order don’t you? Perish the thought – but perhaps the selectors and coaches are motivated by getting the best team possible to get the best result possible at Craven Week and don’t have bias towards their schools. And perhaps it was also the case last year which is why all those Glenwood okes were selected? #justsaying
@Side Line View: Depth across the schools teams and players in the CW side are at odds with each other aren’t they? 2 different metrics.
As was mentioned in previous threads about the GW / MC fixtures – where GW cleaned up the A games – but ran short on the remaining matches. So in that case MC has the depth – but not the stars in the A?
@beet: who would you play at 12 then if you move Tedder out to 13 as Du Randt is a difficult centre partner when playing 12 due to his lateral running and steps( no he is still a great player before I get crucified)… feel you need a bigger 12 than 13 especially on defence… going to be interesting to see combinations especially 12/13, 123 and 6/7.
@GreenBlooded: Just for the record the important criteria/performance issues are how many were given the opportunity to go to trials and how many actually made the Craven week team. Let us be the judge then
I do not think the GM marketing machine is going to pontificate about numbers in the final trial game 
Is it an interesting statement of the lack of depth at college that only 1 boy made the final 2 teams?
@Anti Green: That is/was an option I’m sure.
I was disappointed that Tedder wasn’t tried at 13 with Loftus to test the effectiveness of that combo.
@beet: Hi Beet, I would use Tedder as back up at 10. Bryant as reserve Fullback.
@Anti Green: I agree Bossr was very good and sealed a CW spot with his performance.The option is there to shield him from the defensive responsibility this year by using him at Day 2 starting no.15 and as a backup no.10
@BiasedDHSDad: I thought Bossr had a great game against MHS. He’s a good player. As I questioned last year why Bader wasn’t the first choice fly half I got replies that he has “Next Year” well its the same for Bossr, he has next year. Even if they are to consider him for Full Back, which I think he will do well in that position. He has next year. Bader had been awesome the whole of last year and then just as great this year. Even with teams trying to work him out this year.
VCE$%&**^^$, then he possibles vs the probables and then eventually the hopefuls.
Why was Dixon in the Possibles side? Anyone know?
@GreenBlooded: Sorry – I watched the U16 – but did not pay too much attention as my mind was elsewhere.
They really used the 2nd half of the McClaren XV/Sorensen XV as a possibles/probables match – and made a few changes during the chukka to mix and match and get the final two teams.
Was there an U16 possibles/probables yesterday? Does anyone have the names?
@BiasedDHSDad: There was definitely a lack of flexibility.
Back up scrumhalf was amongst the possies up for grabs. Simpson and even Goedeke should have been handed more game time.
@BiasedDHSDad: Sorry I added ‘Tuli now. I think there were a couple of others that got time on the park as well.
Ntuli from DHS also played half the game at 7 for possibles.
For my money Palvie was the player to shine, and personally I thought Bossr was marginally better than Bader yesterday (but from what I have seen elsewhere I would go with Bader).
DHS bias: I thought Bryan was very good at fullback albeit in the 2pm game which was clearly played at a lower intensity, Simmo very good at scrummie (to the point I thought he was at worst second best on show yesterday) and Coetzee good when he was on as well (but not as good as either Bossr or Bader, but would be a good option as utility back).
Lineout work was a problem and the PD problem is very very clear to see. Was impressed with the workrate of some of the front row players.
But having watched a few almost lily white school teams this season it is easy to see why PD is a problem when it comes to selections like this.
@vlei: Hopefully today. But will be this week for sure
Grade 11u/17 Van rooyen, Prinsloo, Mahlangu, Coetzee and Bossr if i am not mistaken
@vlei: thanks beet. When do they officially get announced?
Just for the record:
Michaelhouse 8
Glenwood 7
Westville 6
Hilton 4
Kearsney 2
Pionier 2
College 1
Clifton 1
DHS 1
@Rugger fan: Thanks, that must have been tough for the boys.
I am happy with Nicholson’s performance at open side flanker. He is a very direct player and his build allows for the perfect body position. He has played most of his SBR at 8 which I have always felt was not his natural position. I hope he continues to thrive in said position for the 1st team.
@vlei: check your inbox
@Buffel how many boys in grade 11 still in your team ?
@h2o: Thanks. I’ve added this point about the ball carriers.
@vlei: Making up the 9 PDA’s is going to be a challenge.
@Anti Green: It was played at the end of the trials session yesterday afternoon.
Has this game been played already? If not when is it due to take place?
@Buffel: putting two guys on the bench that can only play wing throws the whole balance of the team.
beet, your possible team?
Beet i agree with the lineouts, they were dismissal to say the least. My other concerns are with the body positions of ball carriers at the contact point. My team on the day would be the same as propable with with Dixon in place of Muller. Reserves will be possibles 1,2,3 muller backup as extra jumper, 9 van der westhuisen 10 bosser can also be 15, 8 de marigney, 11 mukhendi/buthelezi or mazibuku. I also feel that players like coetzee 10/12 and Lee 2/3 are close. Mhlangu is in a class of his own a great prospect as he is still u17.
That awkward moment when weeks of speculation and conspiracy theory just doesn’t come to pass. ….
Dixon in the Possibles is a surprise.
I see that both sides are going to be fairly strong. My call is that Dixon will captain the side from number 7 and Bader vice.
1) PEVERELLE
2) PRINSLOO
3) VAN ROOYEN
4) QOMA
5) SESINK-CLEE
6) XABA
7) DIXON – CAPTAIN
8) PALVIE
9) DAHL
10) PRETORIOUS
11) MUKHENDI
12) TEDDER
13) DU RANDT
14 QUMA
15) FOSTER
16) BOSSR
17) SONGCA
18) VAN DER WESTHUIZEN
19) MAHLANGU
20) MAZIBUKO
21) NICHOLSON
22) WISEMAN
23) MUNANGI
That is my side and would like to see how close I am. There is cover in the main positions and the 9 PDA’s are accounted for. Very hard to get the numbers right.