FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  A Non Fiction account of Stormers vs Bulls.

A Non Fiction account of Stormers vs Bulls.

Started by Mozart28 REPLIES450 VIEWS· 08 Jul 2014, 00:06
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:06
#1
08 Jul 2014, 00:06#1

Ah the lies that are spread on this Board by the OOM and Sapp. Let's examine a few players:

 

1) Victor Matfield. You would swear reading the pulp fiction the Oom produces Victor is thrown about in contact. The only thing approximating this was  at minute 8.25 when Botha charged into Victor and was propelled forward into him by a Bools tackle....Victor sensing Botha going down steps back. And makes the next tackle decisively on Carr.

 

He also pulls down Botha easily in space at minutes 1.44 and 35.45. At minute 26.30 he soars over Botha to steal the lineout.

 

Victor was very active and effective throughout the game as evidenced in the mach stats.

 

2) Juan de Jongh vs Stepfontein was a draw, with neither player cracking a big gap. De Jongh's half break at 13.00 put the Stormers on the front foot though, for the Taute try. Steppie did his usual crash ball stuff with no discernable effect.

 

The trouble with Stepfontein is he runs into contact but can't offload. He was also turned easily after Coleman put him away cleanly at minute 63 (wrongly ascribed to de Jongh by Bobbie). Hougaard standing at 12 showed how to break at minute 52. Steppie just cant find space....but when defending in space he is simply not very agile as we saw when Aplon ghosted past him. A very overrated player.

 

3) JJ's game was mostly a ball dropping sequence. At minute 76.30 he actually contrived to step Rhodes in buckets of space, but lost the ball. Something he also did at minute 29 and minute 66.

 

4) Taute was another serial ball dropper in spite claims he is rounding into form. ...at minute 73 and at minute 65 in a great scoring position. His pop gun boot was also  in evidence....no doubt leading to the big wind up at minute 46, which led to a dangerously charged kick

 

5) Speaking of Hougie...another rudderless performance at scrummie....he was better on the wing. A sad fumble at the lineout at minute 10.50. Not to be outdone last year's future Bok certainty van Zyl sent one along the deck in minute 45.

 

6) Then there is the Monster Marcell....van der Merwe. His first scrum was decent at minute 50, but at minute 73 he was popped up and at minute 77.50 popped up for a penalty. He also had the ball stripped at minute 51 and right on the Stormers line at minute 58.45 the kindly Marcell gets stripped again.

 

That's about it for the detail. The Bools suffered because increasingly teams are deciphering their maul, because their hooker was inaccurate, because both sets of props can't scrum,  because their scrumhalves were poor and their centres were toothless.

 

I thought Coleman was better than Pollard on the day. Although Pollard was fine taking one good high ball. Ndungane was the best Bools back by a mile. Actually Willemse played well I thought dominating the front of the lineout.

 

For the Stormers it was Coleman, Aplon, Schalk, the admirable Cilliers,  Vermeuelen and especially Carr.....those players were the difference.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:34
#2
08 Jul 2014, 00:34#2
 Mozart
"The only thing approximating this was  at minute 8.25 when Botha charged into Victor and was propelled forward into him by a Bools tackle....Victor sensing Botha going down steps back. And makes the next tackle decisively on Carr."

An outright lie.   Matfield was just pushed off by Botha and was waiting for aniother player to tackle Botha.   Carr pushed Matfield aside in a tackle as well.   I expecyted some fibbing - but this is stretching it a lot.  
Absolute quiet about the incident where Matfield as robbed of the ball at a line out and also the poor tackling efforts of Matfiield.
Matfield was NOT effective as alleged by Mozart - he was bullied and even the match report quoted by Beeno on site said clearly that the Bulls locks were dominated by the Stormers ones.   I do not know how loyalty to players can be stretched to the point of lies and distortions on the level achieved in this case.

The case was quoted where he soars above Botha - but dead silence when he was penalized for trying to 0take out Botha - soaring above him in a line-out.
Then there was the standard attack on  Serfontein and the complete silence about De Jongh's string of missed tackles.  The normal attack on the try-scoring Taute was also the result of a really sick mind. 
Reading the above litany one would think that the Bulls locks were supreme and the reason why the Bulls lost so badly was the result of certain players - all noted for Mozart's dislike of them.  Standard bullshit of the first order.  
This report reminds me of the praise song Mozart posted on this site after the Scotland test about Bakkies Botha minutes after that test ended.  It was absolute BS - same is is the above summary.  
DESPITE YOUR HOGWASH MATFIELDS'S PERFORMANCE WAS SUB-STANDARD AND A REASON FOR REAL WORRY - HE IS PHYSICALLY NOT UP TO STANDARD.
After this I am keenly waiting for the report on the Cheetahs game and would like to see how you discredit De Jager's performance.    That really would be a joke of the first order.       
 
     
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:34
#3
08 Jul 2014, 00:34#3
Duplication
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:34
#4
08 Jul 2014, 00:34#4
Duplication
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:34
#5
08 Jul 2014, 00:34#5
 Duplication
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:34
#6
08 Jul 2014, 00:34#6
 Duplication
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:34
#7
08 Jul 2014, 00:34#7

Duplication
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 00:34
#8
08 Jul 2014, 00:34#8
 Duplication
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 03:16
#9
08 Jul 2014, 03:16#9
Yes they are all duplications OOM. I stand by my account of the game....your views are rubbish. Have a good one.  
SH
ShezzaPro2,471 posts
08 Jul 2014, 04:21
#10
08 Jul 2014, 04:21#10
 Funny, I knew what you were going to write before I read it and it failed to deceive as it was pure garbage. 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 05:05
#11
08 Jul 2014, 05:05#11
Funny, I knew what your response would be before I read it. And it has all the content of your typical post..... a bit of vinegar and nothing else.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 06:58
#12
08 Jul 2014, 06:58#12
 Mozart
Not my views   - but the views of others who saw the match without blinkers and without a desperate effort to smooth over the deficiencies of Matfield.    You are not tro be trusted in this case and it is ebcident that you will do anything to discredit players you do not like.  Standard Mozart rubbish - sad to say. 
By the way the incident involving Ruan Botha was that Botha just bumped Matfield backwards and he went backwards hoping for somebody else to tackle Botha.  Made no effort after the bump to tackle him at all.   That is what happened - not the garbage you wrote.  
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 08:07
#13
08 Jul 2014, 08:07#13
Matfields job is not to engage in a game of physical dominance with a player who is going down....it's to provide sound defence. He didn't become a second tackler, he shifted to take down the next runner Carr. Good mature defence.
Everything I describe is accurate, not the hysterical stuff which is posted  by a small, discredited contingent on this Board. 
Matfield did make 11 good tackles, and dominate the lineout
Serfontein was taken down like clockwork
JJ, Taute and Hougaard did make poor handling errors....Taute was charged.
Marcel was penalized for popping up.
All facts....none of which you reported. So, I ask you with tears in my eyes..who was being deceptive.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 08:34
#14
08 Jul 2014, 08:34#14
 Mozaqrt
Did Botha just pushed Matfield back when he came to him and he was going backwards as a result of the push - when that happened there was no tackle in process.   He was not going backwards to cover another tackle - in crude terms - he was chickening out. 
The description you gave of Matfieldd's performances is fraudulent and that is a fact -    what you said happened - did  not happen int eh case of all things othr than line outs.  Matfield had  massive ally in Deon Fouruie - after all the years as a hooker 0- he has yet to elrn to throw in balls accurately.  Matfield is definitely not the first lcok that took Stormers throw n balls this year when Fourie played at hooker - there was a sting of poor line out throw ins - ending up in opposition hands.    OK - despiite that give Matfield credit for line outs - but for the rest his game was poor - he tackling in the main weak - not good as you said.
By the way -
*  did the ball taking out of his hands incident occurred - yes or no?   Why no mention of that incident?   Why now mention of his poor passing in at least 2 cases?  Why no mention of his ball protection deficiencies - which resulted on the tackled player having to hang onto the ball - with Matfiekld falling down and being flat on the ground next to the tackled player?
The misrepresentation of the Botha incident - and the quietness about the rest of the negative occurrences during the match is really an indication of how you tried to cover up the Matfield deficiencies in that game.  
So, I ask you with tears in my eyes..who was being deceptive?   One answer - you with your rped reporting.  

     

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 15:48
#15
08 Jul 2014, 15:48#15

I never saw Matfield turning over any ball, but he clearly did, so I obviously missed it. But was Matfield's ball turnover the reason for the loss, or was his tackling? In fact was Matfield at all culpable in the loss as you so luridly claimed in your pathetic headline. Take turnovers...if that was the problem your worst culprit was Pollard, followed by a bunch of Bools at 2 turnovers. Only Greyling and Ross two of the worst Bools never turned it over.

 

OOM you just make it up as you go....the moment there is a bad result you attach all the players you are dissing to the result.

 

You are a very dishonest person.

 

 

 

 

 

Pos T/APtsK/P/RMRCBDBOLTO TackLOPenY/RFBBeyers0/004/1/10330512 2/00/000/0WNdungane0/000/0/5251002 2/00/000/0CJJ Engelbrecht0/000/0/3211101 9/20/000/0CSerfontein0/000/3/8240401 14/20/010/0WBasson0/002/2/4190011 3/00/000/0FHPollard0/005/17/5310113 9/30/000/0SHHougaard0/003/19/6351223 11/00/010/0PGreyling0/000/0/350010 7/11/040/0HVisagie0/001/1/310001 8/20/040/0PKruger0/000/2/200011 8/30/010/0LWillemse0/000/2/510101 12/15/210/0LMatfield0/000/3/550011 17/14/310/0FRoss0/000/0/7160100 20/21/010/0FJ Engelbrecht0/000/0/320201 11/00/000/0N8Hattingh0/001/3/660012 14/12/010/0

 

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
08 Jul 2014, 15:54
#16
08 Jul 2014, 15:54#16

Non fiction my arse.......look no further than the fact that de Jongh missed 2 of his 4 tackles - draw my arse.

 

 

JJ beat defenders, ball was not dropped, it was lost on the ground - he was better than useless de Jongh and his opposite number.

 

 

The heading to this post is wrong.....the word "non" should be removed

 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 15:59
#17
08 Jul 2014, 15:59#17
JJ was a mess Dave....the one defender he beat was a lock who he stepped inside, made five metres and lost the ball. It's time you put him in your Barrett, Murray, Olivier file. He is going nowhere. You were right that he has pace and a step, but he simply doesn't have a centre's vision, has poor tackling technique  and he is weak in contact. Too many issues.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
08 Jul 2014, 16:03
#18
08 Jul 2014, 16:03#18

JJ was not a mess, he was better than de Jongh who cant tackle and did NOTHING with ball in hand and JJ was better than his opposite number. If JJ was a mess, these two were a disgrace.

 

I don't care who JJ beat, what he did was beat defenders......he only got the ball 3 times all match.  

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
08 Jul 2014, 16:07
#19
08 Jul 2014, 16:07#19
 I w ish the Stormers would buy JJ back. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if the Bulls paid them to take him back.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 16:16
#20
08 Jul 2014, 16:16#20

Not defenders plural Dave....defender single.

 

Well Vlag, I'm guessing if we got JJ back we would shift him to wing. But even there the question is....will he help his side to score points. We have now watched this Bloke in some 25 tests and S15 matches since last year....and barring the first Bargie test when all our backs ran rampant....I can't think of one game where JJ made a positive contribution to scoring actual points. Any ACTUA L points

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 16:42
#21
08 Jul 2014, 16:42#21
 Mozart
I watched the game again - and must admit I was wrong about Matfield and must apo;ogize to the Board members  - he was worse than I thought.  There was some bugger-ups I missed.
I looked specifically at the line outs and tackle issues.   Matfield did not make one tackle where the tackled player did not go forward by between 1 and 3 meters in the tackle process.   
Bad news was the line outs as well - Fourie's throw-ins were erratic and that helped Matfield in taking line out balls.
One of the things I missed was the tackle of Cilliers where Matfield went back sprawling by at least three meters losing possession of the ball just seconds before halftime.
So I think I got it all correct know - Mozart made a lot of the tackles - - but he would accuse everybody whose tackle quality is on par with Matfield's tackles as a poor tackler - if he brought the player down directly he would be a "process tackler" - he was not even good enough to be classified as a process tackler. 
Matfield really was pathetic - as Saffex said Botha owned him and overshadowed him completely in Tight 5 play.   
WHAT A BLOODY FARCE - MOZART ARE YOU NOT ASHAMED OF YOURSELF WITH YOUR FALSE CONTRIBUTIONS IN THIS CASE.     
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jul 2014, 17:21
#22
08 Jul 2014, 17:21#22

Well Saaiman fortunately the Bools coach, the Springbok coach, the South African Rugby Press, the two big Rugby sites and the posters I rate agree with me.

 

Dave, HasBeen  and Cheesy agree with you.

 

I feel okay.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Jul 2014, 17:44
#23
08 Jul 2014, 17:44#23
 Well - as always you are wrong - my surname is not Saaiman - so lets accept that the issue of "pap" Matfield will come clearer - when like the Bulls on Saturday - the Springboks lose against the All Blacks and the Wallabies.   
The SA press at least this week owned up that the Stormers Tight  5 was better than the Bulls and looking at what Matfield produced - the article quoted by Beeno was 100% correct.
If Matfield lasts till the end f this year - it would be a bloody miracle.  The more experienced Aussie and AB  forwards  will play the fool with him. 
As an aside - I will help you in finding my surname - I am a direct descendent of Eva of the Goringhaikona  and her daughther Pieternella Meerhof.    

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jul 2014, 16:43
#24
09 Jul 2014, 16:43#24
clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 11623 Is Stade Francais trying to get rid of Morne Steyn
May 15, 2014, 15:31:02

A report and photo showed him together with the Paris St Germain Rugby Club and he himself posted the photo.   Could be - because he was a serious and very expensive flop for Stade Francais.


As I understand it both Stade Francais and Paris st Germain at one stage  belonged to the same owner - and the article on the issue quoted them as sister clubs.  


However, Paris St Germain is not a Top 14 club and it seems that they are a second level club with no representation in the French international team.  


If this arrangement proceeds I believe it would be a massive comedown for Steyn - a second level club in France and he is he to be considered for the Springbok team?   That would be a disgrace and I hope it does not happen.     

 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
09 Jul 2014, 16:57
#25
09 Jul 2014, 16:57#25
 There was a Rugby Club called Paris st Germain before the amalgamtion of that club to form Stade Francais.  Max Guizinni united two clubs to form the present Stade Franncais Club - prior to that time both clubs were in the French Third Division.  Guizinni spoent a fortune on the newly - formed Club and built it up to its Top 14  status.  Guizinni left Stade Francais in 2011 due to financial reasons and I thought he might have started the PSG club again - but apparently he did not.
However, what has the above to do with the fiction you wrote above as a reflection of the Bulls - Stormers game.   You wrote a load of BS and now have to change the subject - standard Mozart style.    
And whatever you say the Stade Francais Reject is bad news.
.  
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jul 2014, 17:58
#26
09 Jul 2014, 17:58#26
Hahahahahaha....man you have an inflated view of your background, apparatchik. You are the direct descendent of apes, as we all are. But I'm sure old Eva is turning in her grave as you spill out one lie after the other.
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
09 Jul 2014, 18:05
#27
09 Jul 2014, 18:05#27
 Hahahaha. So,you have started digging again. You thought? Really? You thought and then you decided................. to  start a thread about an article you read about SF trying to sell off MS to PSG. Let me remind you what you said.

"A report and photo showed him together with the Paris St Germain Rugby Club and he himself posted the photo.   Could be - because he was a serious and very expensive flop for Stade Francais."

According to that there was a report/article linking him to a move to PSG RUGBY club. That, to me, suggest that you have read a report saying that he was with Paris Saint Gemain RUGBY club. There never was such a report. You were bullshitting ..... again....and you know it.

"As I understand it both Stade Francais and Paris st Germain at one stage  belonged to the same owner - and the article on the issue quoted them as sister clubs."

Which article is that now? The non-existing one linking Steyn to a possible move to PSG?

"However, Paris St Germain is not a Top 14 club and it seems that they are a second level club with no representation in the French international team. "

Were you so eager to post your drivel that you didn't consider checking up and making sure you are not, once again, exposing yourself for the stupid doos you are? I mean you haven't even think about checking up whether they do in fact have no representation in the French national team?

"If this arrangement proceeds I believe it would be a massive comedown for Steyn - a second level club in France and he is he to be considered for the Springbok team?   That would be a disgrace and I hope it does not happen. "

Once again, you have not made sure of your facts.Your first priority is always toget some dirt on Morne Steyn.

Now back to the latest. You got out your shovel and started digging again. Now suddenly, you have decided that there was a rugby union club called Paris Saint Germain. That, despite the fact that I have already told you long ago that there is a rugby LEAGUE club called Paris St Germain. Nope. You insist that there was such a club. Believe me. There never was a rugby union club called Paris Saint Germain. It was also no amalgamation that formed Stade Francais. Stade Francais was started in in 1883 one hundred and fucking thirty one years ago. Guazzini bought SF in 1992 and in 1995 they merged with Comitie Athletic St Germain (CASG). All of that is useless information in any case because there hasn't even been a club called Comitie Athletic St Germain (CASG) for the last 19 fucking years. Why would there suddenly be this little "confusion" with PSG rugby club. You were talking kak then and you are talking kak now.

You are correct though, it has nothing to do with the Bulls and the Stormers game, just like the Bulls have nothing to do with the football World Cup and the German national football side.Think about it.



MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Jul 2014, 18:16
#28
09 Jul 2014, 18:16#28
Eva turns again.  
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
09 Jul 2014, 18:42
#29
09 Jul 2014, 18:42#29
 Those who are unable to learn from past meetings are condemned to repeat them. - McKernan's Maxim
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news