Rugby Championship 2012 & 2018

Mike, you go a long way to kick yourself in the groin. I've covered this topic no less than six times, yet you claim I won't acknowledge it? Do you suffer from short and long term memory loss? You say that more tries were scored in 2018, which means this season was more successful. Yet again I must correct you.

RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIP 2012

Tackles

1. New Zealand - 91.4%
2. South Africa - 90%
3. Australia - 86.9%
4. Argentina - 86%

1. New Zealand - 18
2. South Africa - 12
3. Argentina - 7
4. Australia - 7

1. New Zealand - 101
2. South Africa - 71
3. Australia - 69
4. Argentina - 64

1. New Zealand - 45
2. South Africa - 19
3. Australia - 18
4. Argentina - 14

1. New Zealand - 85.7%
2. South Africa - 85.5%
3. Argentina - 81%
4. Australia - 80%

1. New Zealand - 33
2. South Africa - 21
3. Argentina - 18
4. Australia - 17

1. New Zealand - 198
2. Argentina - 153
3. Australia - 137
4. South Africa - 121

1. New Zealand - 107
2. Australia - 77
3. Argentina - 72
4. South Africa - 64

1. New Zealand - 87.3%
2. South Africa - 83.3%
3. Australia - 81.8%
4. Argentina - 80.3%

1. New Zealand - 35
2. Australia - 25
3. South Africa - 17
4. Argentina - 10

1. New Zealand - 201
2. South Africa - 143
3. Australia - 130
4. Argentina - 101

1. New Zealand - 111
2. South Africa - 80
3. Australia - 69
4. Argentina - 46

Listen dimness as per normal you missed the plot completely.  The discussion that I did mention was on try scoring - something you and Mozart does not consider necessary in the game of rugby - hence your admiration for kicking at goal by the substandard Morne Steyn.

Listen dimness - I compared the matches played in the first year of coaching by the substandard Meyer and Coetzee -compared to what Erasmus attained in the first ten test matches  

An attack is BETER when it leads to scoring of tries - and that is a fact you better start recognizing.   Your total knowledge is based on misundestanding of the game and quotes from coaching manuals.    That does not mean you make any contributions of value on this site,   You have been caught out too many times for that

So up your game - you are struggling too much with facts. 

Mozart - Mozart - Mozart

So scoring of 13 tries in six matches is better than scoring of 23 tries in 6 matches against the same teams?    

The AO fool furthermore tried to bring in 2017 - the second year in which Coetzee was coaching - not the first year of coaching like was applicable to the other two coaches.  He is much like his mentor Mozart who is often enough guilty of statistical abuse.  

And then the other issue is the Springboks beat NZ in the away game and was extremely close to beating them at home.  Did Meyer or Coetzee achieve that?

Actually, 2017 is very relevant. It's the clearest indicator of whether we have taken a dip or improved in the transition between coaches. The information couldn't be clearer, we have moved away from a ball-in-hand game. Coetzee's Boks improved dramatically between 2016 and 2017. This leads me to believe that we have experienced more of an upswing in personnel than any coaching genius. That, and a return to traditional strengths. We essentially scored 4 more tries in this year's RC. The anomalous Wellington test will account for the difference. Even the New Zealand journalists pointed out, the change in fortune began last year. Your comparisons were yet again a biased and sloppy mess. You even went so far as to say 2012 and 2018 were identical seasons, against the same quality opposition. The truth is that it was an entirely different prospect. I haven't put a foot wrong in my evaluation or comparison of these seasons. To add insult to injury, Meyer only lost 3 games in 2012, not 6. He also had a 100% record on the EOYT, facing stronger opposition. This could scarcely be more contrary to what you claim. 

BS - you compare statistical evidence on a comparable basis.   If you want to bring in 2017 - the comparable basis would be  2013 and 2019 - which is clearly impossible to do at present. 

All that because the AO farce wants to protect the dismal record of Meyer in 2012 and want to show something totally irrelevant as a basis for comparison to achieve that.  

The mans ideas are incomparable jargon.  He started off with the story about the RC and then veered into the total situation.  He hide the fact that Meyer's record in 2012 in the RC entails 3 wins and 2 losses and a draw.   He conveniently bring in two tests against Wales and England (in November) - which was not part of the rugby set-up in 2012 and 2016.  Another farce as per normal with him.   

One has to wonder how that brain of his functions - logic is never  part of the functioning.      He still ignores own words - a critical part of Meyer's selections - to the effect that SA players do not have the skill set to play a ball in hand game.   So dear AO claims the Springboks under Meyer played a ball-in-hand game. 

Leave real evaluations to people who understand the game of rugby please.

A little hot under the collar aren't we? I suggest you have a little stamp and bash your keyboard; get that frustration out of your system and then reread the entire thread. Maybe, just maybe, you'll comprehend just how much of a gaff your posts have been. 

No AO - dear friend - I am perfectly calm and knows enough of statistical usage that one compares apples with apples and not anything else.  Beware - you are on the same trail of Mozart insofar as statistical abuse is concerned.

And always remember what your hero Meyer himself said about team selection and his honesty in practicing what he preached.  Do not invent things that was untrue and in fact undermine the honesty of Meyer - he does not deserve that.   Keep to facts and it would not happen.    

You've erred badly, again. We can plainly see that the attack has not improved under Rassie. Only bias would have anyone say it has. Here's the truth: Coetzee's loses lowered the bar to such an extent that Rassie has only had to have a D+ season to raise moral and receive plaudits. We were dominant in three tests this year. We were fortunate to win in Wellington, as well as the first two England tests, and the French test. We can't ride our luck like this into 2019. To make matters worse, two of our dominant tests were losses. One due to Rassie. 

So, what do we have? We have a kicking team. One of the most devout kicking Boks sides I can remember. We even kick with dominated front-foot ball outside the opposition 22. So many aimless kicks all season. He has broken all of your golden rules. 

The Bok attack was more fluid under Meyer. He had a jittery start in 2012 as far as attacking rugby is concerned, but taking into consideration what he had to work with, he did a better job. 3 losses in 2012. We very well should have 9 this year, but have 6 thus far. 

Your comparison between the seasons has been, yet again, exposed. Firstly, you compare two different eras without context. Next, you fail to pickup on last year, which actually reveals we are less effective as an attacking side. Your bias and lack of comprehension skills are astounding. You ignored 2017 because it shows the team was improving under Coetzee. You speak of Meyer as my hero, he was and is of no such thing. I had the honesty to criticise Meyer for his mistakes. You won't hold Rassie accountable for anything. You'll even blame Meyer for his failings. Immature, illogical and above all else, puerile. 

Who said the defense was better?   Fact is that tries has been avoided - but without looking at missed tackles that led to tries it is not possible to link scoring of tries statistically to defense and then make the claim made by you.

Fact is you make a statement that due to defense it was easier to score tries in 2018 than it was in 2012.   But is that not manipulating tackles made as a means to determine why more tries scored suddenly became due to poorer defense,   That kind of argument borders on statistical abuse - because the factors are not the same.   

Fact is you have no basis to say that and there is no way that it can be proved.  I looked at the mad statement made by AO when he came up with the same nonsensical statement and found that there were more tackles made in tests in 2018   than was made in 2012 and you then came up with real statistical abuse and when exposed ran for cover.   

No Mozart as preciously discussed your  statement have already been proved as nonsensical based on statistical abuse and a repeat will not help.     

He also fails to note that New Zealand themselves didn't score more than 20 tries. Look at those clean breaks and defenders beaten. He still asserts defence has been steadily improving in SH rugby.

The 2018 Boks scored 9 more tries with more than three times the linebreaks. This actually makes the 2012 Boks look more efficient. 

So we created 16 more clean breaks in 2017 under AC than in 2018. Speaks volumes of how poor our backline is functioning. We have the lowest number of clean breaks, it probably also shows that Duh Allende and Kriel never really break the line or create space for their outside backs. 

Our centres rarely produce more than a couple of passes a game. Nothing purposeful. The attacking shape of the Boks has been clunky. Slow build up and too linear. Too often it's easy to see runs coming, a s we saw with the English flooding past our decoys and screens. 

Mozart

You got caught out previously and told not to use statistical abuse and your mate AO does not realize about anything about statistical abuse.

They do not know what they are saying - they claimed there were fewer line breaks - but keep on bringing up line breaks in 2017 - that has zero to do with the whole scenario at all.   Fact is that the whole AO story is total nonsense - one cannot even call it statistical abuse - it is just plain stupid.

If one does that kind of BS one may evens start using 2015 and compare it with 2018.   However, next year we will have a problem - it is a WC year - so the only comparison would be between 2015 and 2019.

You should tell your side kicks statistical usage should compare apples with apples and not apples with anything he dreams up to try and strengthen the BS he specializes in.

Mike, you got caught out. Plain and simple. You could have refrained from raising the issue again, but you went with it anyway. The conclusion just the same as before. A defeat. Ende. 

 Defeat on what?   BS spreading defeat nothing - it just complicate things for the spreaders.  

Mozart

Your BS claiming that scoring of 21 tries in 2012 compared to 13 tries in 2012 RC has been exposed as another example of statistical abuse by trying to compare what happened with a year that cannot b used in comparison anyway,   I indicated to you to tell the non-thinking AO that even mentioning 2017 is statistical BS.   The man is totally ignorant - or pretends to be trying to cover the story by BS.

You have been caught out recently by the way you us ed stats and it was exposed as statistical abuse.   So why get involved with that type of abuse again.    

There is no such thing as an expansive game - there is and has been for years demands for a ball-in-hand game and not a possession handover kicking game.  It was clearly explained that the constant box-kicking game was BS and the probable  reason for Rassie sending back De Klerk to his club.  Indeed that was an element that was a mirror image of what happened in 2012.   For the rest there was a huge improvement in effective kicking and playing a ball-in-hand game. 

For years you claimed that the Springboks under Meyer was playing traditional SA Rugby - now while indications are totally different between what happened in the Meyer era and what is happening at present - the story of Traditional SA rugby is conveniently brought up again.    Fact is Meyer said the SA backline players do not have the skills to play a ball-in-hand game and his selections indicated that he implemented that approach totally - taking backline attacking usage totally out of games.    So either you must indicate why there was such a huge difference between what you claim to be Traditional Springbok Rugby in the Meyer era and what you call Traditional Springbok Rugby today or stand accused of total distortion o the situation.  

And please stop supporting the stupid AO from abusing the situation by referring to the  2017 series.   You should know better than that.   

The Meyer regime and the Rassie regime are quite different. Rassie's gameplan is to kick first, run later. The kick, defence and set pieces are the core of the current Boks game. You are in a predicament because Rassie is implementing a game you have ridiculed for years. 

Meyer built a more fluid attacking game. I posted several tests which show this. There was a base of traditional strengths, but with a modern approach. 

When all is said and done, you've been found out. Badly. You now claim 2012 and 2018 shouldn't be compared, yet you did the same thing. You should have been more through thorough in your investigation, and less biased. You'd have found the truth. All the insults in the world can't save you. 

AO

Who are you talking about when you say kick first run later when compared to the approach of Meyer.   How do you account Meyer using Morne Steyn as flyhalf when he was the kicking donkey all the time and was the worst kicking flyhalf we ever had,  How do you explain commentators explaining over the air his kicks as BS?   Granted Meyer dropped Steyn after the June test and he was replaced in the last two tests of the RC because of atrocious performance.

You have never ever contradicted the statement  of Meyer himself - claiming that the Springbok backline players did not have the talent to play a ball-in-hand game.   You seems to imply that the statement of Meyer was not put into effect by Meyer himself insofar as his game plans are concerned.    

Your claim that we must use 2017 is illogical BS.   If you want to do that you have to compare the Meyer performance in 2012 with the performance of De Villiers in 2010 since 2011 was a WC year and say we should use 2010 as a comparative year and not 2012.   You do not want to accept the situation is based on Meyer, Coetzee and Erasmus are compared as what they achieved in THEIR FRST YEAR OF COACHING.   THAT IS THE ONLY COMPARABLE INFORMATION AVAILABLE,   you cannot pick and choose what years to use and then make an incomparable calculation because that may serve your own purpose better,

Listen - stick to facts and do not make sweeping non-proven statements that is clearly false.          

Morné was a balanced 10. This has been well established now. You'd do well to catch up. Meyer may have said we lacked skills, he did however implement attacking structures. More sophisticated and fluid than what we had before and after him. That's not up for debate. It's a fact.

Why did I compare 2017 with 2018? Simple. Because it perfectly captured the transition between coaches. That's how you best gauge the impact of the new coach. What can we see? The Bok's use the ball significantly less. Metres gained, defenders beaten, clean breaks, passes, they are all down by a considerable margin fro last year. This is the contradiction. I am highlighting your dishonesty and hypocrisy. You bemoan aimless kicking, and excessive kicking. This is the most devout kicking team for a very, very long time. Far more than anything under Meyer. You misused try stats to deceive other members and create a false impression of the Rugby played in three coaching eras. You were wrong about all three. This thread has cut your flimsy lies apart. Ende. 

So you imply that Meyer is a liar by claiming he did the opposite to what he said himself?   

No there were no lies propagated by me - the deceit came from you and Mozart.  You ducked and dived - made wild statements and then it was found that both used statistical abuse.  The abuse was typified by your running for cover by trying to use the 2017 stats, while the whole discussion was in fact based on the first year of coaching and NOT the second year of one coach because it may serve your false portrayal of the situation better.  

BS spreading on site has been developed into a fine art by Mozart and you through wild and unproved statements - fact is you turned deceit into an art form.   Ende     

I can and have identified specific details about the Meyer game which were better. That you choose to ignore them only highlights your bigotry. You have been exposed at every turn each and every time you have attacked Meyer and numerous players. Your investigations are at best hideously sloppy, at worst intentionally deceitful. 

No - I believe Meyer explicitly when he said something and watch out what actually happened as a result.

The result was always the same - elimination of the backline from an attacking perspective.   Up to the time when Morne got kicked out the game plan ended at 10 or maybe at 12 who was expected to crashball.

In the WC the flyhalf got less than 25% of the passes from the scrummie - so the ball was passed to loosies who were expected to crashball.   So even a ten man game was only used when the flyhalf have to make a relieving kick - keep it to a 9 man game.

After all the backline players did not have the ball skills to play a ball-in-hand game, so how could they be trusted to get balls passed to them?

Your highly imaginary beliefs did not count in practice - I am not saying you are deceitful - I am saying you have a super level imaginary trait which made it possible to write fairy tales as to what happens on rugby fields.   Keep it up - you are always good  for a regular laugh.

You think of attack merely as throwing the ball to a back. The difference between Meyer, Coetzee and Rassie is that Meyer utilised the forwards more as playmakers. Under Meyer the forwards passed significantly more right across the board. This is why they were a more dynamic team. He wasn't trying to play Aussieball, but follow in the footsteps of New Zealand. A modern attack merges backs with forwards. New Zealand are traditionally difficult to stop not because their backs spread the ball wide, but because their forwards provide the team with more width on attack. Meyer's attack was flatter, with a quicker developing attack and a greater emphasis on distribution. Your inability to identify the usage of the forwards and how they linked with the backs severely discredits anything you have to say on the subject. 

Do you know what the word "playmakers" mean?  Obviously not since what follows in fact is not what in fact happened.   What should be looked for is where forwards and backs combine in  attacking combinations.    I can remember  it happening twice in the 2013 AB test in the Johannesburg test - probably by accident because for the rest it NEVER really happened in any test.

As per normal it is easy for you to claim that is what really  happened without actually providing proof of that happening.   So dream on and happy dreams as per normal,      

Schalk passed the ball 67 times in 6 tests at flank, in 2015. Who was he passing to? Considering he was regularly employed with a pod, it must have been backs. So, Schalk was a player who could bring backs into the game as well as carry securely and strongly into contact. He was therefore a dual threat player. A very valuable player. He was also an outstanding defender. Your memory clearly isn't reliable enough to be of any consideration. That's if we assume you were able to gather information in the first place. Highly questionable. 

Making hospital passes when defense is on top of the recipients is meaningless.   That is what routinely happened - Burger  and the other loosies did not really serve as a link player to enhance backline attacking moves.  

Please note that Meyer used the game plan of the scrummie passing  the ball to forwards were rare in the three SR tests - where Burger played at 8 in the Japan disaster and then moved to 7 in the remaining 6 tests,  

If one carefully analyzes the stats it is rather difficult to determine where balls went,   Burger was not the only culprit where balls went to from the scrummie - Vermeulen and Louw also got part if the scrummie passes, but Burger obviously got most.

So where did the ball go to from the loosies,   It did not go to the flyhalf or centers - because the centers handled just about the same number of balls the flyhalfs passed.

All in all - what happened is that in the main Burger and other loosies did not really link up with the backline in anything as claimed by AO.  So another airy fairy story by AP exposed as being dreamt up.   Heaven alone knows how our dear member manages to dream things up that did nit happen,                 

Man you guys are like a pack of very hungry dogs with one tiny wee bone to pick 

Wardad

I love to expose BS so routinely spouted by Mozart and AO on site.  They love to use stats - but then get caught out abusing stats.

Mike has a fetish for being caught with his pants down. We do what we can to limit these exposures, but clearly we have a long way to go. Your consideration on this matter is much appreciated Wardad. 

Dream on - you just keep on informing us that rugby knowledge is not your strong point - BS is .