So Tokkie......hahahaha

This game was a colossal catastrophe for Lügnerin. I can't wait to see what his next move entails. 

Mozarrt

As per normal you have it totally wrong with Mostert - he was piss poor all match long and it is confirmed by his stats.  Erasmus should stops selecting powder puffs in his team and that is a fact.

Mostert stats showed he was worthless in any event:-

Balls   Passed                    =     4

Balls carried                      =     5

Meters  gained                   =     2

Tackles made                     =    10

Tackles missed                   =     3

Penalties given away          =     2

The missed tackle ratio was 23,07.   Now tell me how can that be regarded as acceptable stats by a lock.   It could never be if there is any logic in the game,

Frankly he started a rolling maul - any other lock would have been better than him doing the same job.

Whiteley is another candidate ripe for dismissal from the team. He was virtually not a factor in the team at all.  No surprise he was subbed at halftime.

Your other hero Louw went AWOL in the game - was he actually playing at all?

What a load of crap you two come up with - period.    

No Mozart

Mostert is a powder puff player not physical enough to play at lock.   Louw did squat about anything on the field of play other than making two turnovers.   He did no carries and  made 2 tackles,   Is that enough for an openside loosie - certainly not.

If Erasmus knows what is best for the team he would not pick them again at all.

Lol Mike, those driving mauls.

Care to elaborate?

plum

I look at all aspects of the game and as Mozart said he had a dismal game,   He took his line-outs and I think another lock would have taken the balls and start mauls anyway,   I understand there was one he started, but how effective was the maul anyway.

Mozart is wrong - this is not he first test this year when Mostert had those kind of stats figures.   I think on the whole he weakens the Tight 5 too much - not being really physically strong enough to compete.  

As to Louw he was dismal in all aspects of the game - but he did get 2 turnovers .  I did not say he cannot get turnovers - I said that thus far this year in al tests played he made 3 turnovers - while in only one test he showed a reasonable tackle count,   Three turnovers in 9 tests and near to zip else is not justification for retaining a player in the team.     

On a slight tangent ...... I can't think of a Bok earning the man o match

I've been logging all the Bok lineouts for the entire season, Mostert has been the initiator of many successful mauls. I don't understand why Mike felt the need to take exception to his maul effectiveness. There was clearly nothing to argue from the outset. 

My imagination? What evidence do you have to prove I am wrong? Can you recount any of these lineouts? I can tell you what the times were, the thrower, the formation, the target, and the result of each lineout to date. I can even say which plays were used off each lineout and the attacking shape, as well as the subsequent phases in the attacking sequence.

I therefore find it hilarious that you, not being able to cite any details other than pure opinion, can be so sure of yourself. 

Mostert may have jumped well in line-out - he is light enough to be lifted more easily,   The rest of his game yesterday was POOR.   

I looked at all aspects of the performance of players and do not build up images that ultimately destroy teams.   

I wonder. Should we have a video of Steph? Would that quieten Mike? 

Concede what?   

Moz, you left the poor dear punch drunk. 

Rooi

I dont know if i qualify as a gimp but based on the conversation during last week, i had to have a chuckle after that last lineout.

Specifically, it was claimed that Mostert was unable to form a lineout at test level. Then this week, with Mostert making the calls and taking many on himself, we had driving maul diminance on good few occasions. That is in direct contradiction to what Mike said.

On my side i have zero against Mike. Actually, i'm one of the people that told him i'd much rather have him here because he posts valuable threads on the site, rather than have him leave over his ongoing differences with Moz. And since i've been on here we have disagreed many times. Many many times and never felt the need to insult each other. This occasion is no different.

Anyway, you have to enjoy the irony...when the thing a player apparantly can't do ends up winning you a test match for you.

Moz, I see I was recruited as one of your gimps. Is that why you called me stupid a while ago? How does this gimp thing work? Is there a reward system? What happens after recruitment? Are there different levels of gimphood , and who is the alpha gimp?

Take no notice of the squealing of Rumplerooiskin. He is a beta male deeply dissatisfied with his own miserable existence. As one can plainly observe, he interprets the world through a dark lense of self-pity, where everyone is ganging up on him. A complex network of perceived injustices and inequalities. It's all unfair, which means he never has to consider the fact that perhaps he himself is the problem, not only in the quality of interactions he is involved in, but in his own life. I feel great pity for him.

So, you become a gimp, because you will not bow down to him. He needs to domineer over others, being pandered to. As his beta rear end is tanned he becomes a cry bully. You, Moz and I all disagree on numerous things, yet we can interact among ourselves as normal well adjusted human beings. The one bad apple, the Rotting Rooi Crabapple, that's the problem. At his advanced age, it's doubtful he'll ever break out of his beta blinkers. 

No Mozart

The first thing on your mind as how to elevate Louw - bearing in mind his below par performances in all tests this year,

The next thing was how to find another reason to attack Du Toit. 

Rumplerooiskin's ronery rittle rament. 

Moz, I think I'll pass. Imphood looks better to me....and I'll be my own imp thanks.

Herr Rot Hals, AKA Herr "Rumplerrooiskin"(Rumpel-rot-stiltskin)?

Mozart

I looked at that maul and you misrepresent the maul scenario totally as to be expected,   The Springboks tried to set up the maul with Mostert as co-ordinator, but it became stagnant.   Mostert ended up on the stagnant side of the maul - when the forward movement started away from where he was.   The forward movement was seemingly led by Du Toit when it started going and kept on going forward.    Mostert was NOT involved in the forward movement of the maul at all. 

I think my assessment that on test level Mostert is physically unable to set up and control the movement of rolling mauls is again confirmed,         

Actually it was a well directed maul all the way. France immediately counters by pushing us back a yard or two. Then we start gaining ground to the right, forcing first France 18 and then also 17 to launch themselves into the right side of the maul to stop that momentum. This now helps our maul by giving it a clear target for a peel - the less defended left side.

I did not defend anything - I just commented on your false initial description of how Mostert start and co-ordinate the maul that let to the try,   The real description was that the involvement of Mostert led to a static situation - when the maul started to move forward Mostert was totally out of the picture.

Now the attack on Du Toit is a diversion from what was discussed,   Just look at the stats Mozart and the missed tackle ratio's of Du Toit and Mostert if you want  to find a new topic to divert attention away from an initial false description of the maul.  That one is also inexplicable - so cotton onto a situation where a high ball was not fielded by the backs who knocked it on forwards - it bounds favourably for Basteraud who burst through and scored.  If he did not score Du Toit would have been penalized and likely carded for an offence in the red zone.

So easy - blame Du Toit for the Basteraud score - not the backs who failed to cover the kick and knocked the ball forward.   That is the normal Mozart approach after all.        

No Mozart

You are indeed trying hard to cover up when your misleading posts are exposed.  yes if that tackle was made by Du Toit from an off-side position it would have been a possible penalty try and a likely yellow card for Du Toit.

If that happened - it would have been manna from heaven - it would have given you ammunition to attack Du Toit for the next three years.   

Are you a reliable source for interpretation of rugby?  NEVER 

No Mozart

You are indeed trying hard to cover up when your misleading posts are exposed.  yes if that tackle was made by Du Toit from an off-side position it would have been a possible penalty try and a likely yellow card for Du Toit.

If that happened - it would have been manna from heaven - it would have given you ammunition to attack Du Toit for the next three years.   

Are you a reliable source for interpretation of rugby?  NEVER 

Mozart - Mozart - Mozart.   There is not a single player in rugby that would not react automatically and do what Du Toit tried.   I am afraid you fouled up once again to discredit Du Toit and ended up with egg in the egg mountain covering you totally..   

It was the normal BS comments from a rugby illiterate.   And another lie is coming out promptly.   De Allende tackled Brown but he was able to stretch out and place the ball and scored.   Have you no same in constant distortions you write on site? 

Now Pakie - come to the aid of your beleaguered friend Mozart - he needs it badly.  Place on site a photo p roving that De Allende did not tackle Brown at all.    

The Brown situation is dealt with in this thread, I have no urge to start that debate all over again.