Is Jake White The Best?

After all he achieve already to making the Brumbies so competing well, with not many Australian Wallaby in the combinator is Jake White proved to be already the best coach made in South Africa?

Nobody gave the Brumbies much hope before the start of this season. The fact he has got the Brumbies as the best competing Aussie franchise with such a rag-tag fugitive team speaks highly of the man. Certainly it´s hard to think of Puff Divvy coaching the Brumbies as well.

I especially like how he encourages backlines to stand so flat and to attack the space. I think Meyer would do well to implement a similar game with the Boks and of course depose M Steyn who in my mind doesn't have the attacking nous to play so flat.

I think he learnt a lot from his unique position as boks coach.

Not trying to get into a political mud fest but if you read his book you'll see the pressure he was placed upon to choose players of colour.... if their weren't ones who were good enough on their own i.e. Habana, then he had to select other players such as Ndugane, Floors etc.

He had all the talent any coach could dream for but he sometimes had to work hard on players so that they fit his plans/strategy.

It wasn't the case of going to a player, this is how I want you to play, if you can't do it, leave. He still needed to choose these players regardless of their form/skills so he learnt to analyse and get the best out of players.

He was a video analyst for Mallett before he became a coach and post boks he set up his own business which gave indepth player analysis to clubs around the globe... if there is one thing he knows its how to spot talent and how to get the best out of that player.

I think however there is a lot of competition for the best coach SA have produced. Think of coaches such as Craven, Mallett, Christie, Erasmus, Meyer.

These are guys who have not only been very successful but were real students of the game. Craven is especially well thought of in SA for being a genius coach but also one that built the unique scouting platform which exists in SA.

Jake may have been a bit of a snake after he left SA but it cannot be denied the man is a hell of a coach. He got the Bok job with the Boks at rock bottom at their very worst and told them in four years they'd be world champions. And by God he meant it . Now this brumbie team powered by a bunch of rookies was expected to be dead last but they're right up there pulling punches with the best of them.

I think he best proves you build your team around your tactics not your tactics around your team

I never understood why people in SA give White a hard time. Personally I always thought he acted with dignity throughout even when it was announced by SARU that his job would not be renewed... and for a clown.

He made enemies just like SCW did because he did things others didn't want to admit, he revealed painful truths but thats what it took to take home the green.

I think the reason why Jake white recieved a lot of criticism was firstly becuase very few people ever know what goes on behind those Oak doors in Capetown, during his tenure the pressures put on him to select "quota" players and then the way he had to motivate their selection on TV whilst everyone knew he is blowing smoke didn't go down well.

Then also his methodology to win the RWC didn't sit well with some supporters, I for one hatd that he forsaked test matches for the "greater good".

At the end of the day, he knows how to build a squad, he analysis the opponents well, and demands discipline from his players.

Hopefully Heyneke Meyer won't blow smoke and won't forsake wins for the greater good.

Got to admire what he's doing at the Brumbies, even at the expense of my Hurricanes...

How do you judge a Coach,?Danie Craven was rated a great one,BUT under him the Boks.Drew series versus the 1955 Lions,the Wallabies and lost a series for the first time to the AllBlacks.Kitsch Christie who had a sadly premature death had a record number of wins,plus a RWC.BUT either side of his reign the Boks played the AllBlacks 9 times only a single win and draw for the Boks in there.His side met and beat the All Blacks on a single occassion in SA in 1995. That team weakened by a viral attack[Food poisoning.?]lost after 120 minutes by a last minute drop goal.Jake Whites record is average for a Bok Coach 67% a streaky 3Ns win on bonus points 2004[ALL the sides won 2 each] plus a RWC.
Which of course makes up for every thing his side played the AllBlacks on 9 occassions winning 3 all at home.He set the precedent of throwing a 3Ns for a RWC.The Clown as you call him PDV had 3 strikes against him coming in .He was a Political experiment the First non-white Coach,following a RWC winning Coach.Trying to change the way his team played he was over ruled by his Senior Players.Despite that his side won a 3N series 5-1,a Lions win admittedly streaky.Had a 5-6 record against the All Blacks including an away win at Dunedin in the House of Pain.Had he bought home a RWC he would have been as much a hero as Jake White or Kitsch Christie.PDV made 3 mistakes firstly instead of standing up to and sacking his dissenting players he gave into them.Secondly he picked players overseas based and palpably out of touch.Thirdly he was mistakenly loyal to players well past there best.Freddie Allen and Kitsch Christie both had 100 % records,both are rated as Great Coaches BUT only had about 14 matches.A Seasons worth today both teams went into decline after they left.[Maybe not true Boks 1996].
The Australian Conference is the easiest a lot of cheap points,always one team stands out.The Reds have had so many injury problems they have`nt been much of a threat yet.Brumbies under Jake White going well but lets wait till seasons end before buying him the Cigars.
.

emack2

Bit unfair on Christie to say that because SA lost either side of the RWC to NZ that it tarnishes his record.

SA were banned from rugby for a decade and their players lost years of experience. Had it been the other way around then it would have taken NZ just as long to get back to their full potential. The 95 RWC final was completely against expectations and sometimes thing are just meant to be.

One thing I do give him and the boks huge credit for however is how they worked out Lomu's weaknesses for the final and in fact he never scored a single try against the boks in something like 10 attempts. When you think that he scored tries for fun against everyone else it shows the boks were/are tactically very astute.

Please lets not go down the food poisoning route.... ever been hit with food poisoning???? If it was dead serious there is no way the players could have played.
The one time I was hit by food poisioning I was hospitalised for a week and was so weak my da had to carry me into hospital, now at the time I was playing rugby for SW ENG age grade and was physically quite fit and strong.

Anyhow whatever anyone says..... its sour grapes. Even if it was a govt. plan hatched by the CIA by the killers of Kennedy and they could prove it... a truly great side would not bring it up, those who constantly do should be a little more gracious. Just let it be.

I think you are sugar coating PDV also.

Yes he did try to change things... but to a game suited to the platteland of the Western Cape and no where else. In his first season he experimented and got burnt.
The senior players got involved because PDV wasn't able to coach at that level.. he had no experience in coaching top players.. the highest experience he had was the 2nd division Currie Cup with the Falcons..... the 3rd tier of SA rugby.

Only when they went back to their old methods did he find success.

And when he had 9 of the toughest tests in a row he could imagine he still thought it prudent to take all those players on a 5 match winter tour to Europe.... which due to fatigue caused them to lose 4 out of 5 with their sole win an unconvincing slump across the victory line vs. Italy.

Part of the reason why Jake White's side won the RWC in 07 is that he gave his senior players enough time to rest before and during the season. He rested his players during the AI 06 tour and it showed as the bulls raced to S14 title and SA won the RWC.

He took many rookies on that tour such as Bismaarck & Jannie Du Plessis who ended up getting to the RWC, playing in the final and getting a winners medal. He gave them a chance and they didn't win but they didn't disgrace themselves either.. they were ahead for much of the game against AUS if I recall and only lost by a couple.

In 4 attempts no team has won the 3N & the RWC in the same season, perhaps SANZAR should look into this and push the tournament back a little to allow their players to get over injuries/fatigue etc?

Well I for one can't wait to see how all the sides play this coming international window and then the 4Ns.

I think NZ may have the hardest job, after wining the cup. New coach and new players, hard standard to keep up. But knowing the kiwis we'll prob not notice any difference!!

Boks too with new coach and players, well maybe. who knows, maybe the old guard will stay for the 4Ns. But I feel a wind of change blowing thru the 2 great powerhouse of rugby, by end of September will be great debating time as to which has got the tactics and selections correct.

I suspect and hope both sides stick to their traits. the boks with force and strength. the abs with their usual 85 minutes constant rugby nous that goes right to the end and usually wins their games. It would be amazing, not to mention weird, to see the boks running double scissors at the back and hordes of dummy runners, or the abs to start a 10 men up and under game, so I think their's will be a case of more the same.

Or maybe not?

Nothing to say bout the wallabies, as usual we'll struggle to put a full side out, and even if we do just one injury and we'll be using repl;acements from the gps 1st XV!

fa0019 wrote:
Please lets not go down the food poisoning route.... ever been hit with food poisoning???? If it was dead serious there is no way the players could have played.
The one time I was hit by food poisioning I was hospitalised for a week and was so weak my da had to carry me into hospital, now at the time I was playing rugby for SW ENG age grade and was physically quite fit and strong.

Anyhow whatever anyone says..... its sour grapes. Even if it was a govt. plan hatched by the CIA by the killers of Kennedy and they could prove it...

I had salmonella from attending a wedding in Italy last year....very nice indeed and my stomach didn't 'function' properly for two weeks....it was hell.

Anyway, you cannot deny the facts surrounding the All Blacks. It happened and they were herculean enough to take the game to 100 mins. Jeff Wilson came off and chundered on the sideline on TV, I remember it clearly. There's no sour grapes but it happened. Interestingly, Ian Jones was asked about it in his nz herald column this week

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10806595

I think it is fair to say that although that 95 team were the nucleus of possibly the best team in History (96-97), we can ALL appreciate (even NZers) what that win did for SA rugby and the country in general

a truly great side would not bring it up, those who constantly do should be a little more gracious. Just let it be.

Word got out before the final that NZ had come down with food poisoning and they were going to request a delayed kick off. Had it been put back a day, Colin Meads was of the opinion NZ would be pretty much back to full fitness

Not going down that road FAoo19,I saw the Players hawking up on running onto the field with my own eyes.I deliberately stated VIRAL INFECTION as opposed to food poisoning which was a more likely explanation[tho i did mention the food poisoning bit.]I WAS NOT tarnishing Kitsch Christies record NOR Freddie Allens.Merely pointing out that AFTER both there reigns the teams following them.struggled.In fact it was`nt untill 1998 that the Boks had a convincing season versus the AllBlacks.The All Blacks struggled right thru the 1970`s as the NH caught up with the Coaching thing.ALL sides go thru cycles that included the Boks after there return from isolation.I do not wish to get into
Politics and Rugby again I have already publicly apologised here TWICE for things I said about that and don`t want to go there again.Jake Whites record is about average for a Bok Coach.PDV `s was 62% and I think personally he has taken a lot of stick to and deserves some credit too.Meyer I hope will get a good run and a Clean slate he does`nt have to live up to a RWC winners record.Incidentally Kitsch Christie only met the ABs once and he beat them fair play to him.As to food poisoning I recently had a attack after a dodgy Chicken,with vomiting and dia horrhea.I would`nt have considered myself fit to meet a fit Bok side at home for 120 minutes and i had a MILD ATTACK.AS to Jonah Lomu
never scoring a try versus the Boks true,BUT by gang marking and tackling him they created gaps for Wilson, Cullen and co. to score tries which they did very efficently so not so clever afterall.

I don't deny that some of the players weren't ill... what I am saying is that firstly it has been blown out of proportion as to the severity of the case and secondly no matter what, the continual mentioning of it as an excuse for defeat is not very gracious.

In essence its insulting to the boks.

I remember watching a video on youtube on the matter featuring Eric Rush who was in the squad at the time. It may be still up there but I can't be bothered to search and linked (apologises).

Anyhow in that he states that he was one of 4 squad members who didn't get sick... why because he ate somewhere else. I do recall that all 4 were non first team players. Anyhow, if it was so bad.... then why didn't any of them play?

A Wilson, Osborne, Lomu etc at 80-90% were surely not as good as a fully fit Eric Rush who was a sublime player himself and unlucky that Jonah came along when he did.... so why didn't any of those guys feature.

If it was put back a day and the players would have been fully fit... then it wasn't food poisoning. You never hear a Brasilian speak about how Ronaldo having a seizure cost them the FIFA world cup in 98... even though it probably did.

As for Jake White may have an average bok record... but he took over a bok squad in its worst shape in its history.. when he took over they were at best 5th in the world... and if Wales or Ireland had faced them in the RWC03 I think at least one of them would have beaten them.

He began with a clean slate and come the RWC07 near all his players were appearing in the competition for the first time.

PDV has a better record than White but I think you'll find it hard to find anyone outside of Mitchell's Plain who thinks he was a better coach than White. It was a totall different situation, he inherited a great youngish squad of players whose best years were ahead of him.

FA, no use aguing this, we are the all blacks biggest opponent, no matter what.

This whole food poisioning thing fascinates me . I've come to two conclusions ,number 1 . food poisoning is either not as bad as it is made out to be otherwise no professionally players would have played 120 minutes of rugby

number .2. Food poisoning is dangerous and a crippling affliction which would mean all the all blacks in that 95 team were superhuman seeing as they played 120min while clearly sick thanks to aunt Suzie.

I personally believe a few players got sick and this dominant all blacks side decided the food poisioning story would be a convenient excuse for losing when the world expected them to win convincingly

Bullsbok - the story of the food poisoning came out BEFORE the final...I remember waking up on the Friday before the final and hearing on the radio that most of the players were ill and there was mention of asking to delay the game. Read Colin Meads' book and it will tell you the same thing.

Anyway, it doesn't change what happened NZers accepted defeat a long time ago but it seems everyone else cannot accept that they were just clearly not at 100% or even 80%...

So which conclusion do you believe number 1 or number 2?

chewed_mintie

I don't think anyone is saying it didn't happen. The evidence is quite clear that it did.

However why was their not 1 change to the side? Why did fit players who didn't get ill (i.e. Eric Rush) not take the place of sick players?

If thats the case, the coach is as much to blame as the illness itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5iQBLgndTU

This is the Eric Rush video I mentioned earlier... There he says that 5 or 6 players shouldn't have played and there were fit and healthy guys like him waiting to play.
A top coach, someone like Henry, SCW, White are brave enough to drop even their best players if necessary.

The following points I wish to make,of All the sides playing Rugby i respect the boks most of all.With the exception of my First Choice team the All Blacks.Of all the Bok Coaches I respect most. Dr.Danie Craven a GREAT Player,Captain,also
Coach and Adminstrator.BUT mostly for an act of generosity fixing the All Blacks
Scrum problems with the 3-4-1 Scrum during the 1949 tour.His average as a Coach was 65% worse than Jake Whites 67% better than PDV`s 62%.I do not thing PDV a better Coach than Jake White far from it ,BUT to dismiss him because he lacked experience is poor.Most All Black Coaching Candidates potentially have no experience above Super 15 level.AS to the time out of Rugby effecting the Boks,note the following.The Argentina Jaguars,England ,the New Zealand Crusaders,and a World XV all played the Boks post 1981- pre1992.
Many Bok fans on the old 606 site claimed that Bok Rugby was so strong they would have won the RWC `s in 1987 and 1991.So you can`t have it both ways,the Illness pre 1995 RWC was a fact.The Conspiracy theory rubbish BUT it was a debilitating illness and didn`t help against a fully fit side .That they took them to the last minute of extra time was to there credit.For the Record I don`t think any side would have beaten the Boks in 1995 or the AllBlacks in 2011 it was one of those things.The Bok versus All Blacks is THE greatest contest in the History of the game.To me it is a total lack of respect for EITHER the side to deliberatly field weaker sides against the other.THAT includes Jake White ,Henry and Co. and PDV ,BUT Jake White set the precedent and that for me is unforgiveable.Jake White is a good Coach no no one denies it with Eddie
Jones help he won a RWC.As to no side winning a 3Ns and a RWC in the same year well thats as maybe.BUT if you think the AllBlacks c ould`nt have wrapped it up versus the Boks at full strength.Then I think you are sadly deluded.

You coach RWC winning team.....
you got something!
Clever coach.

alan, I think the reason why you cop criticism for your comments is because you only see one side of the equation.

You keep on reminding everyone that the All blacks were not at 100% for the final of the 1995 RWC.

Yet the other FACT you ignore is that the springboks struggled in international rugby on their return.

When we returned we started playing the top nations only, we played 16 tests vs England, France, Australia and the All Blacks, winning only 5, drawing 1 and losing 10.

That is FACT, not some opinion of old 606 posters.

So there is no surprise the All Blacks were so successful against us at the time.

Kitch Christies premature death and retirement just prior to that stopped a run of 13 consecutive test wins.

It took until 1997, and Nick Mallet for us to emulate or improve on that with 17 consecutive wins over 1997-1998.

You are also quick to note when the All Blacks had weaker teams due to injury or selection policies when in preparation for RWC tournaments. That is the case for BOTH teams. More so for us, when looking at our "political quota" situation, the All Blacks didn't have to select pplayers like, McNeill Hendricks, Dale Santon, Kaya Malotana, Wayne Julies, Ricardo Loubser, Gavin Passens, Lawrence Sephaka, Quinton Davids, Thando Manana, Adrian Jacobs, Eddie andrews, Hanyane Shemange, Hilton Lobbets, Kabamba Floors etc. Not all of these players were bad, but kept better plaers out of the team, due to quota's

There is no doubt the All BLacks have been better than us during the professional era. Yet as much as punters, journalists an posters alike maintained their opinions that the All Blacks would prefer not to have played Australia in the semi last year as the All Blacks find us more predictable, these FACTS once again remain. We still have the best win ratio of ll nations against the ALl Blacks, and also over the last 4 years.

As much as our gameplan is frustrating to watch at times, we are the ONLY team that has the ability to STOP the All Blacks playing their game.

Not sure about the ONLY team to STOP the ABs playing their game. I think the FRENCH also have that ability, albeit LESS frequently.

The rivalry is fiercest between countries who do well against you. Historically, the Boks have always been NZ´s main rivals and in their wilderness years and the beginning of their comeback, Australia took up their mantle and France has proved a thorn in the side on more than a few important occasions. Yet France for other sides doesn't hold the same amount of fear because they seem incapable of lifting their game against them.

As for Jake White this year, he has his team playing well away from home and picking up wins in tough places. That's down to the players partly but also credit must go to the coach.

Perhaps I should say "only team that can regularly"

I wish you were right but I think we'll have to go with that mate.

Biltong Hi,in the past I have found reasons for the Boks lack of success e.g.2010
when they had horredous injury problems.As did the AllBlacks 2009 with the same results.I am as sorry as any a about Kitsch Christies early death,the success or otherwise of the teams since 1956.Against each other ghas in the main been predicated on Home Advantage[1956.60.65.70,76,81 etc.].Of course I am as passionate as any here about my chosen team/teams and like you can find reasons[excuses?] for defeats.My ethos is my own RWCs as you know mean nothing to me.For me you play one tournament at a time,AND if you are AllBlack or Bok play your strongest side.ANYTHING else is an insult to
THE Greatest rivalry in Rugby History.politics have bedivelled selection by BOTH sides THAT I will leave there.I know my ethos is not that of those who see the RWC as the be all and end all of Rugby.MY ONLY criticism of Jake White as a Coach was he deliberately played a weak team in the away legs of the 3Ns in 2007.For me maybe ALONE that is inexcusable THE hardest Tournament in the World to win devalued to attempt to win a RWC.I wonder what SA supporters would have said if he had`nt delivered a RWC.Much the same as if the AllBlacks had`nt delivered last year."Oh was`nt he the one that thtrew away a 3Ns as a gamble on a RWC and LOST".

Emack2

Its about prorities. You may say the 3N is the toughest tournament in the world to win... but why then no team who won the 3N in a RWC year gone on to win the RWC also? In 4 RWCs since the 3N began the winners of the 3N have always failed to do the double.

The 3N may have the top 3 sides in the world present but the RWC inc. ENG & FRA who outside of NZ are pretty much equal most fo the time with SA & AUS... and in the history of the RWC there has only been 1/7 competitions when those sides have not featured in the final.

In essence the RWC is more prestigious.... always has been and always will be.

The UEFA European Cup is much tougher to win then the FIFA World Cup. There are zero easy games and the relative strength of the teams is always high and seldom that different from each other.... but it doesn't include Argentina or Brasil. Its the same with the RWC & the 4N, 6N.

KO sport is always the definitive measure stick. Asafa Powell is the most dominant sprinter of the last decade if you count wins and times. Yet come the big races he cannot compete with others. Its the same with rugby and why the RWC will always be held in a higher regard to the 4N, 6N or whatever league based competition.

The 3N is far too close to the RWC in terms of timing for them not to imact the other. If you suffer even a medium injury in the 3N you will not recover in time to be effective for the RWC.

Come RWC years the 4N should push back the NH teams end of season tours and play the 4N 1 month early. Do that and I'm sure you will see teams more willing to compete in both. Until then, its just too much of a risk.

fa0019

I thought you made a very good point higher up about the ability of Jake White to spot talent, I think most of us remember those Brumbie sweeping right back moves in the early 2000's engineered by a man called Larkham, and who do we now see running the water bottle/ organising the backs? yes, a man called Larkham.

We all have our own ideas about RWCs,personally I think 4Ns[3Ns] should be abandoned in a RWC year or the Super 15.To finish a Tournament 14 dauys before a RWC is ludicrous I agree.As to the 3Ns and a RWC win in the same year.
In my opinion had the AllBlacks played there full side in Away leg versus a Boks side not yet up to speed .They would have wrapped it up then played an experimental side vesus Oz.NOT that I would ever advocate that as I said it is only my opinion on RWCs which I don`t rate.BECAUSE it is not a true knockout Competion,when matches are decided by lot. NOT a draw 4 years before the event takes place.Before anyone shouts I know what I am saying is Finacial suicide,the last RWC was ruined for me when Ire land beat Oz. A NZ or SA v OZ final would have been really great.

Jake may have been a bit of a snake...

It cant be help having the surname "White" in some circumstance.

I hope this not so racist. Meant just as some kind of light mind joke.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Jake may have been a bit of a snake...

It cant be help having the surname "White" in some circumstance.

I hope this not so racist. Meant just as some kind of light mind joke.

yes can be a bit of a handicap in our lovely south africa