A Massey Ferguson at centre

 Standard BS  from the two monumental fools.   No use to discuss anything with them because they are clueless about rugby.   Looking through notes in the case of Dim Fox means looking through notes depicting misrepresentations and lies as was proven over and over again.
Nonu was poor all year - makes me wonder whether this idiot ever thinks.  Just remind me again about whether poor means the following in tests - this time against Australia on 15 August 2015:-
 Nonu2/1100/8/107643013/20/000/0   So how do we get the real meaning of the center combination Dim Fox regards as ideal - Kuridrani and Toomua.  They were the combination that day and Nonu and Smith wiped the floor with them.  
By the way - when the Aussies wiped the floor with the English on Saturday the only player in the Aussie team who was below par was Kuridrani - the great hero of the dimmest fox ever in the history of the world.
This is funny - I am LMAO.  What an idiot.       

I didn't watch that test post RC, but I did watch the All Blacks struggle through dysfunctional centre play throughout the RC. Nonu's form has been such that Sonny Bill is now the go to 12; Smith has been iffy for some time now. That makes your sample an anomaly. 
Kuridrani has been outstanding throughout the World Cup and if you cannot follow the game well enough to see that then that's a bad reflection of your level of comprehension. 

 Balls   Dim Fox - he vanished into insignificance on Saturday - he was nowhere in sight 90% of the game.  I was surprised by his performance since you think he is so good. So really surprised by his sub-par performance. 
Talking about low level of comprehension I refrain from building fairy tales when real performance is absent I will rather be accused of a low level of observance and comprehension than be found to be writing fairy tales on this site.  I prefer to et you do that.      

Well let's suppose one concedes your claim that Kuridrani is poor, which I don't buy for one moment....how poor then would be the  chap he ran over in the Stormers game and the Oz test, namely Allende? 

 ture.   The moment uou start evaluating players on one incident during a series you are making a serious mistake.
However, looking at the debate on various issues it always amazes me what people on the site think and what the experts who played on the highest level in the game thinks about players.  I was particularly interested in what Jeff Wilson said about two issues when participating in the Real English Breakfast discussion said about the SA team.
He referred to two issues, namely  - 
*   the situation of the lock pairing of Etzebeth and De Jager is fearsome and is very difficult to content with by any team;
*   he spoke about the center pairing and said they are potentially one of the most dangerous in the tournament - they can and do change the game outcomes around.
I am wondering what is going on on this site in constant faultfinding with Lood De Jager and both Kriel and De Allende.   If experts think differently on players - must their opinions be wiped off the board because it is "hype".   I am sad to say it looks to me more like personal agendae than by any real rugby insight by some members of the site.                

Well not long into the game in Englands 22, Kuri cut a sharp in line allowing Folau to break outside and isolate the last man in the line. Would have been a try had Folau not delayed the pass and fumble the ball. Not long before halftime he again ran a nice decoy line to set their 14 free along the touchline. Made some powerful ruck cleans and made a few good hitups. I think the problem is that you watch the ball during games. You miss the actual action. 

I don't need the approval of another person. 
If you say Damian and Kriel turn games around, then tell me when and where. N obody is saying Lood is a bad player. Stay sober Michael, put that bottle of moonshine aside and fly right. 

 Sorry Dim Fox
I believe that experts like Jeff Wilson know more about rugby than you and Mozart.  He played on the highest level of rugby and both of you are nitpickers trying to find fault with players based on single incidents in games.
For the rest their is one better center than Kuridrani in SH rugby and that is Fekitoa of the Highlanders and AB's.   Kuridrani is like on Saturday often targeted and neutralized - Fekitoa never is.   Th difference is that Kiroftani is basing his game on physicality only - while Fekitoa combines physicality with clever (brainy) play.    

Single incidents you say, well that most certainly is a lie Mr.CleverMike! I have provided everything Damian has done in every game I have looked at, and uploaded an accompanying video so we can all see for ourselves. It doesn't matter what any person says, it doesn't matter how fantastic his technical understanding of the game is. If he sat in front of me and took your stance I'd very quickly make a fool of him! 

 Anybody can do a negative assessment on things even if negatives are not in evidence by creating negatives out of thin air.  You say that people like Wilson does not evaluate games and they will be made a fool of by you.  That says it all.   In your mind you make fools of people - notwithstanding the fact that you are in fact the fool,   Your comments on players are distorted and often enough fictitious - actually based on fairy tales you conjured up - so in essence they are worthless. 
You seems to think you are the prime authority on rugby issues - but you are not and need to come down to earth.  Only lunatics think they are perfectly normal - the rest of the people are crazy.  So grow up and start appreciating that you re often enough wrong.        

"they can and do change the game outcomes around" 
You see, when someone makes a statement like that, the next thing I want to hear is "for example, against opponent A they did this and that and that changed the game outcome in the Boks' favour" to substantiate the claim. 
An opinion without substantiation can be dismissed out of hand, no matter which "expert's" mouth it's coming from. 

 Another person who thinks he knows more about rugby than anybody else and whose personal opinion of himself is so exalted that his opinion - and nobody else - counts.  That is the very essence of BS taking over from brains.  It really is not worth discussing anything with you - because you base your opinions on what you believe is what happened in particular instances - without looking at anything else.
I really posted the comments of Jeff Wilson as a top player and commentator in his own right, in good faith - now I see that that opinion is trashed by two people whom think they know better than him.   What a lark!!!!!!!  

"now I see that that opinion is trashed by two people whom think they know better than him"

Oh no. Not everyone nod their heads and applaud when Mike quotes an expert. 
Why does that bother you so much that you feel obliged to point it out? Thanks for providing Wilson's opinion. I disagree with it because he didn't substantiate it and it conflicts with my own observations.
And life goes on.

 OK - supreme expert - I bow to your exalted opinion of yourself.   

The video is god in this debate, and there are none before him! Wilson is in direct contradiction to it. Just like the experts who were praising Watson so heavily from 2004 to 2007. 

 Sorry Dim Fox -  Supreme Lord of the Dunces - the full match video is king - provided the interpretation is not falsified.   However, since you regard yourself superior in interpretation than experts who played on international level - who am I to question your ego?

Yes, who are you to question me indeed. He who speaketh with forked tongue, but gets tongued tied in so doing and beckons forth egg. Michael, you deny all video. Go back to every vid I have posted and you will find a complete account. Where there is a tackle I start splicing from ruck or set piece to the very next ruck or whichever varying way the movement ends. On attack, likewise. There is no deception, just a nice big unveiling of everything. 
Do all these experts agree with one another? You were all over Mallett when he endorsed Lambie, but very quiet when he raised concerns about Damian. Quoted Deans but not when he was praising Spies. The list goes on. An "expert" is infallable one week and then not worth hearing the next, which one is it exactly? Just whenever it suits you? And why can't you tell me in your own words why Damian is so fantastic? Did I not ask you from references? Did you not draw blanks? Very poor form that you stoop this low. 

 Your Dim Holiness
I do not deny any videos - but despise your interpretation of occurrences on the field of play.  Take the famous Aussie test where 80% of what you wrote varied from misrepresentations to lies,   So take that and forget about preaching to me about De Allende - I accept that in your exalted opinion of yourself you are 100% correct and who am I to differ from your ego-trips and believe what experts say about players you despise.  .   

You only believe some experts, some of the time. 
Now onto the matter of my "interpretations". Simply, I let the video speak for itself, I show everything, the good and the bad. You do what you accuse me of doing, omit the positives of certain unfavored individuals.