FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  A Game of Two Halves

A Game of Two Halves

Started by DezertFox6 REPLIES157 VIEWS· 19 Jul 2015, 12:35
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
19 Jul 2015, 12:35
#1
19 Jul 2015, 12:35#1

Contrary to popular opinion, the Boks did not dominate the first half. They merely had parity with an Australian side that threatened throughout the encounter. The first half was a free running game, and the Boks were clearly up to the task despite some shocking showings on defence, particularly by our 12 and to a lesser degree 13. In the first half Australia struggled to get their attacking game going as they clearly wanted, with the typical wide forwards, usually flank, ala Waratahs getting isolated. It was a problem for the Waratahs this year and they struggled again yesterday. The second half was an entirely different prospect as Australia changed tact. Firstly, they played almost the entire second half in the Boks half of the field. Secondly, they reverted to a more direct game, with one off runners off 9 coming around the corner until Cooper saw an opportunity. From there they applied considerable pressure with a wide passing game working the Boks around from side to side. This is what would have happened in the 2013 Brisbane test had we not fielded Morné and Du Preez. Surprisingly Pienaar's service was very quick and fluid, but his kicking game was anything but. Pollard also failed to apply pressure, so too Lambie. Nobody in the backs to provide the aerial pressure that is the Achilles heel of this Wallaby side. And when we did kick, pressure was weak and it all seemed rather half-hearted. Consequently, we were shut out of the game. However, credit to many players I lambasted for holding out for so long, but clearly much work needs to be done. Our reserve scrummagers were not so good. We missed the power of Duane and Flip, or a Coenie. And Morné was sorely missed. Had he been on the bench, and had Meyer sent him on in the second half, things could have been so different. Note too Damian's capitulation! Constantly exposing his channel yet again, slipping off tackles and provided no thrust to the attack. When he tried to punch the ball up he was shutdown. Every inside attack was shutdown. Kriel had some troubles on defence, but is clearly the stronger of the two head-on. We were essentially playing two 13s. And how much longer will this sham last? Australia applied considerable pressure on Damian and reaped the rewards. 

Before I end this, I must applaud Bismarck. He had an outstanding game, very influential. Had he stayed on I don't think it would have changed the complexion of the game, but it was nice to see a clean and effective showing. Finally playing up to his reputation. Lood was phenomenal with powerful tackles and carries. Was very effective. Not sure how he would fare against the stronger packs in world rugby, but yesterday he played very well. 

Ratings

15.Le Roux (8)
14.Pietersen (6)
13.Kriel (6)
12.De Allende (2 )
11.Habana (7)
10.Pollard (6)
09.Pienaar (6)
08.Burger (8)
07.Coetzee (5)
06.Louw (6)
05.Matfield (6)
04.Etzebeth (7)
03.Jannie (6)
02.Bismarck (9)
01.Mtawarira (5)

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 13:14
#2
19 Jul 2015, 13:14#2
 Desert Disaster
Contrary to popular to Desert Idiot's belief the Boks had a 13-3 lead at halftime and shortly afterwards went to a 20-7  lead.  If that was not domination - what the hell was it?
This is the type of BS this village idiot thrived on.  If there  is one player we did not miss it is Morne Steyn. And he would not accept that Matfield was BS and that as soon as he went off the Springboks took command on the field of play.  Our scrumming was better - our mauls were better, our defense was better - everything was better in the first half.   
Then the BS started on the instruction of Meyer - kick the ball away aimlessly and and inaccurately  every time you get possession.  Pienaar specialized at that - but Pollard came a close second.   Like against the World 15 Pienaar flopped badly in defense he tried to make 3 tackles and missed them all - but the dolt gave him 6/10 for what?
Coetzee was the best loosie as to ball protection and recovery on the filed but piss-brain give him 5/10.   Matfield was worthless in the time he was on the filed of play - but eh gets 6/10.  Pietersen did squat and he gets 6/10.   Then he failed in getting any idea what happened as to De Allende.
But then he praised Meyer - whom everyone else criticized for piss-poor strategy and approach to the game - with crap decisions on replacing players - with BS selections in Matfield, Pienaar, Van der Merwe, Pietersen, etc.  
So here we have BS in buckets from the Desert Disaster - the question is what are you looking at when you look at a rugby match?  One wonders - because what you see is not what everyone else see - so it cannot be any thing but BS.
But wait for it - your fellow Village Idiots, Mozart (who already came up with his standard rubbish assessments) and ceradunce - will be out in force to support you and to preach their rubbish and call it fact.           
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
19 Jul 2015, 14:06
#3
19 Jul 2015, 14:06#3
The only area of dominance on the field was the breakdown. Australia were otherwise very dangerous and could have had a couple of additional tries in the first half and botched a clear run to the line in the second. There was a good 5 tries out there for them! Also, there is a difference between a larger score and on field domination. For most of the first half Australia were the more threatening. In the second half Australia played more direct, as their Waratah style of attack was leaving attackers too isolated. In short, I don't know what game you were watching. Let's be quite clear, my threads are not slanted towards throwing statistics around. If you want that then start another thread. It should be clear by now that your lies hold no weight in these discussions. When you are able and willing to talk rugby, real rugby, then by all means talk to me. But until then you are wasting both o ur time.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 15:09
#4
19 Jul 2015, 15:09#4
Desert Disaster  
I look at what really happen on the field of play objectively - I do not twist it into something despicable like you do to fit your ridiculous statements and prejudice against players.  I do not support selection of duds to play for the Springboks - totally deficient players like Morne Steyn, Francois Steyn and Victor Matfield  I do not dream up rubbish descriptions what happened on the field of play and then try and convince us that it is facts.  I do not deal in idiocy and prejudice.  

When you are able and willing to talk rugby, real rugby, then by all means talk to me. But until then you are wasting both our time.
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
19 Jul 2015, 22:02
#5
19 Jul 2015, 22:02#5
I talked plenty of rugby in my thread on Damian. You know, the one you won't tackle.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
20 Jul 2015, 03:19
#6
20 Jul 2015, 03:19#6
 If you said you talked plenty rugby and twist around what happens on the field of play the way you always do - you are not talking rugby  - you are spreading BS.  But I said elsewhere I am going to print out your account of what happened in the match - watch the re-broadcast and have great fun in doing that.  
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
20 Jul 2015, 03:26
#7
20 Jul 2015, 03:26#7
Good luck to you. I can imagine you writing up your revisionist account to the theme of "Murder She Wrote", then you will shamble over to Ruckers and make a bigger oaf of yourself . A good laugh will be had and I'll crack open an ice cold brusky for another job well done. 
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news