Am splatters Stephanie

Oh please, a center out in the open with space to move should get past a number 7. Please Dr Moz no more of this, lets be sensible!!

Bye the way did you see Allende rip the Sharks backline and that great pass leading to a try under the posts. Looks Like the best 12 in the country!

Beeno setting the good Dr Mozzzzzz straight!

It  was not a question of the centre getting past Stephanie in space, Steph had him covered........Am just brushed him aside. And nope I was watching that other serial flop Raheem Sterling. Are you sure Allende made a break? All I saw was Esterhosen dominating the poor chap after which he was toast....it looked like a shoulder strain.

By the stupid - Du Toit's younger brother came from the bench and showed signs  that like his brother he may become one of the best rugby players in the world      

Steph is not one of the best players in the world. He can be good though. 

Danie, no way! Danie was one of the best locks ever. If Bakkies wasn't around he would have been the defacto lock for the Boks and we'd all be talking more about him. He was a humble guy and stayed loyal to the Bulls even though he had to be #2. Super strong and good in the line out and played awesome in 2007 at #8. Steph is nowhere near where Danie was. I think Steph could play like the Kiwi locks though. They like ball handling and link playing locks. Danie wasn't the mobile player Steph is. How great he could be at this kind of game is debatable but the potential is there. Does he have the temperament?  

Do you remember that England test 10 years ago this November? Danie carried the entire England midfield on his back from a scrum and scored a try. It really got the Boks going after a shaky start. Man those were the great Bok tests back then. I actually think the 2002 Boks would pummel the Boks players of the past few years. They were as blunt as anything but really really physical. Very tough nuts to crack. Today's players may have better cardio fitness but they'd be worn out trying to deal with that pressure. Play under pre ELV rules and you'll see the new gen have even suckier  handling. 

That 2002 Bok pack was monstrous. Not perfect, but New Zealand and Australia really had to absorb a lot. They could apply enormous pressure but couldn't break a defence down. I remember the hone test against New Zealand. It was something like 10 minutes pounding into them in their 22. They get a turnover and score and that turned the game in their favour. It happened on tour too, like when France hit back with long range strikes. Put that pack against the current team nd they'd be hanging on for their lives. Any chink in one on one defence and they'd pour through like a tsunami. We also had great 9s even in those dark days. And compared to what we have now we had more usable 10s. Since the ELVs we have new breeds of players that don't fit into a particular position. Damian isn't a centre but not a wing, Steph not a lock but not a loosie. Serfontein is a centre but which one? Most of our 9s like Hougaard and Reinach are really wings or some kind of utility back. I could go on and on. 

I agree about that fighting spirit. Competitiveness. Jean, Smit, Juan, Schalk, Mozzie, Butch, Vic, Bakkies, Danie, Percy, Habana, Paulse, Big Joe, Joubert, Du Preez, Januarie . Januarie I think is a great example of a flawed player that transcended his technical ability and even physical shortcomings. Him and Butch gave New Zealand fits! Remember Henry saying that they shouldn't be allowed to touch Carter? Sour grapes. He even said Fransie only kicked far because he had illegal tech in his boots. Kiwis are uber paranoid and funny. 

The idiotic two

The fat is that Du Toit is rated as a top class player  and you dolts hates his guts because of in the case of Mozart he has hated him from the start because he threatened tee useless Matfield after his return from retirement and n the case of Lurker because he is always listening to Mozart/

Two prejudiced idiots ty and assess a player fo his real worth tot he team - what a  sham.

I hate their guts? How can you say that? Quote anything that shows I hate anyone. You called Fransie a fat slob, you always call people stupid and idiots and worthless. If there's hate I see it in you. I have my opinions and sure some of them are debatable but I have stated my reasons and it's definitely not personal. I don't actually care about the personalities of the rugby players. Just rugby. 

Damian was the in boy and everyone wanted him as our first choice 12. He messed up in the Rugby Championship and cost us a World Cup final alongside another player I will mention. He has done nothing ever since. 

Lood was the in boy and everyone (everyone who didn't want Steph) wanted him as our first choice lock. He messed up our World Cup and we missed a final because of him and Damian. He messed up three times in the Welsh game by losing the ball in their 22 in a game of few opportunities.

Steph was the in boy and most people wanted him as our first choice lock. Andrews said we must build the team around him. He messed up our Japan test as one of the main reasons why the Bok pack couldn't get going and allowed the dangerous Japanese backs to have a platform to build on. 

Kiel was the in boy and everyone wanted him to partner Damian and said they were the best centre pair in world rugby. He was the final nail in the Japanese test with more shoddy defending. Offers nothing on attack. Where was he against New Zealand? We mostly played like we were down to 14 men. He did nothing. 

Clever Mike says the old pensioners were the problem. I see something completely different. 

Fats Fransie was superb in the 2007 season. He had a captain that he greatly respected and admired ... and because of it, tried his best to please him ... plus the ignorance of youth and the big occasion, helped him play without much pressure. 

He should have gone on to become a Bok great ... heaven knows he had all the talent ... but he didn't.

Instead he became arrogant and developed an attitude ... and as my grandfather used to say "he pissed it against the wall" ...

Such a waste.

PSDT has a lot of talent himself ... but with it comes a lot of flaws. I'm not sure he has what it takes to challenge the top locks in the business ... like Victor Matfield ... and Mark Andrews (a favourites of mine) ... one thing for sure is that if he doesn't work on his shoddy defense, he'll go down in history as another talented player who never saw his full potential realized. 

In my day the coach would point out our flaws and work with us to improve them.

It seems that nowadays it's left to the player to sort his own issues out. It's become so impersonal.  

Anyone saying Morne is a great flyhalf - you immediately know you are listening to nut csses.   Here we have a player whose defense bordered on the non-existent - who never attacked the gain line and stood so deep in the pocket that any ball he would pass would be hospital in nature -  whose out of hand kicking was BS as so clearly described by commentators - but with one advantage - he had a 80% success rate in kicking at goal/   He got dropped by Meyer - his braai buddy - three times in two years because he was piss poor.   But Mozart - the village idiot -said he was a great flyhalf/

Then there is the assessment of Meyer's game plan.   And Lurker came up with a so-called game plan that existed in his top storey - but never seen on the field of play.   I quoted what Meyer said about is own player selection criteria - but the BStrs did not or pretended not to understand the implications of what he said.     Fact remain Meyer's last year as coach was nearly as bad as was the case with Coetzee.   The only achievement Coetzee never reached was the Japan disaster in 2015.  

I will not keep quiet about Mozart's weekly BS about Du Toit and De Allende.   Both started years ago when they were threatening the selection chances of their favourite over-the-hill has-beens and never-has-beens.

And then we have a crazy guy on site that said Folau is a poor player - so lets get it straight - the nutcaes on site will do anything to attack the person with a realistic knowledge about rugby and support the BSting Mozart.   

So in conclusion - what is my faults?   I support performing players and I do not support poor performance.  But there are members on site who believe that reputation is everything - that Meyer was a good coach - that Morne was top class - that any younger players are BS and so forth,   When I say otherwise they come out with all guns blazing - and cannot really substantiate what they say,   Pakie pick and choose pictures not showing angles to prove his nonsensical deductions all in support about what  Mozart wrote.   When I ask politely to produce sho ts showing the angles correctly he blustered and fumed.   Lurker wrote what he thinks happened = but it is all in his mind and was never in evidence on the field of play.   

CC

Du Toit miss too many tackles at times - but he tries tackles which other forwards would give up on and never attempt to make.   A person just have to bear ibn mind the huge number of tackles he made compared to other forwards and even backline players to see the picture in totality.

It is better to ignore Meyer's weekly attack on some players - he distorts everything and is sometimes not averse to lying about circumstances.   In one case he posted a clip to prove he was not lying and that caused a great deal of mirth on my part - since he rushed off to amend what he wrote when I said he must be ignorant posting clip who prove he was on fact lying.   

Lurker

Another load of BS - how did De Allende messed up the WC and the Super 15 - BSter?  No lies please this time around.

Now describe Matfield's contribution in the semi as well - no lies please - keep it straight..    

Now please remind readers that you believe Folau is sub-standard as a  player - it issSunday and we all really need a laugh.     

He directly concedes several tries in the rugby championship and conceded a crucial try in the world cup against new Zealand. 

I never said Folau is substandard at all. I challenge you to find the post where I said that, screen shot it and post it here! 

Now lets get it straight - you are lying again.   In the test against he AB's in 2015 De Allende wiped the floor with Nonu - so much so Nonu was replaced early.  

What tackle did De Allende missed in the semi that had an impact upon the result of the game - careful now you do not want to be caught lying again,    De Allende made 8 tackles and missed 2.   Not so bad - as Pollard made 11 tackles and missed 5 in the semi.

But then they played outside of the stand-in flyhalf Burger.   

By the way you mentioned De Jager - but not Matfield - so please described what his role was in the loss.  No lies please.

Folau - easy go back to your postings about Folau over the past two weeks.  That reminded me about what you wrote about him under another name previously.          .   

Damian never outplayed a single centre in 2015. Nonu was dropped but that had nothing to do with Damian. Tell me what happened to them head to head. When and where did Damian wipe the floor with Nonu.

The Boks centres did nothing against New Zealand. Pollard was heroic though ad was the only effective back ball in hand. Schalk taking ball isn't him being used as a 10. This is where you show yourself up. Do you know what a pod is? Do you know what attack patterns are? Not every ball is intended to make a line break but establish position on the field and give other players more options. Schalk gave options. The Bok centres were wiped on the floor with the All Black centres from beginning to end. The breakdown was the only area of superiority mostly because of Bok Player of the tournament Louw. 

Lood was beaten easily for a try. 7 points conceded in a 2 point loss. Massive. You try to justify players failings by weighing them against made up issues of those you don't like for no apparent reason.

And no I did not say Folau was substandard. You are lying again, or you can't read properly. One or the other. I know what I said. I stand by that challenge that you must provide the evidence. But you are lying just like you lied about Pakie. 

Lurker aka Mozart or his deputy

You obviously realized that Mozart lied about a missed tackle on Nonu in the WC semi and suddenly a change to your original message when challenged,   The dunce was stupid enough to post a video clip on site that proved he was lying about the so=called missed tackle. So lets  leave that one  and deal with your BS above:-

De Allende wiping the floor with Nonu     

This issue was discussed earlier this year and our NZ members vehemently denied it happened.   I gave hem he stats on the game and they accepted that I was correct about my statement.    So have a look at the stats and you may see why Hansen replaced Nonu early:-

How come and tell me what the stats ell you - but don't be stupid again.

By the way De Allende played the fool with SBW only a few months ago in the Stormers-Blues super rugby game as well.

The famous pod story

I can see BS when it happens.  Du Preez passed the ball 42 times in the semi and only 13 pf the passes went to Pollard.  That neutralized any potential performance by the backline = all they had to do was to stand around as defensive donkeys.   There was no attack patterns by the Springboks in that game/  Schalk gave no options and although Pollard had to kick whatever balls he did receive - his defense that day was poor.  

Here are De Allende's and Pollard stats for the day as well:

Look like you are wrong again 

Louw and the turnovers myth 

What makes you think Louw was the SA Player of the tournament = he definitely was not.  De Jager was the SA Player of the Year in 2015 and the fact was that he was lauded by the presenters as being the best SA player in the WC.

The fib about the possession turnovers was tried again last year as  a reason for Louw's  selection by Coetzee.   He never made a single turnover and was a total flop - so keep living on cloud 9.

The Matfield question

So suddenly you do not dislike De Allende and De Jager with a passion - and am objective  in your often scandalous misrepresentation of what happened in games, but I may not ask about Matfield and what a actually happened in the game.   Matfield missed the first line out on own throw he jumped in and later on in the game caused a penalty turnover - which was easily convertible and for the rest did bugger all in the game.

How many one v one encounters did they have? 

How did the 10s play? 

What were the defensive setups of each missed or succeeded tackle? 

What attacking plays were used? 

Which part of the pattern did they occur in? 

Who was the support tackler and who was the main tackler? 

Who was used as a primary ball carrier for a line break and who was used to carry up for the next phase?

If you can answer these things then you know what you are talking about. If not then you have proved nothing and literally know nothing. I'm not being unkind in saying that but it's true, if you can't answer those things you really literally know absolutely zero. 

Himmell - but the stupid ass is unbearable.    Here is the ink where the stats are and you will see wat happened in the game:-

stats.espnscrum.com/scrum/rugby/match/244309.html

So let me answer the rest:-

There were 8 encounters where De Allende and Nonu had.   Bobu missed for of the tackles and De Allende ran straight through him on two occasions.  All happened in the first half and Nonu was replaced as a result  

Pollad was the flyhalf on the day and he had a good game as well.

For a change the backline played an attacking game and attacked from all angles - be it from lie-outs scrums and breakdowns.    The ball was not passed back to the loosies that game.    

The defensive pattern of the NZ team was standard and used normally in all tests the NZ team play.

The main tackler was Nonu an the support tacklers either the wings or the  full back/

So "Pollad" was a good connector for 12 defensively? Better than the All Black 10? I'll have to check up on that head to head statistic somehow. We need to get hold of some video online. 

So let me get this straight, your technical appraisal of the match is:

1.New Zealand used a standard defence that they always use.

2.South Africa attacked from "all angles" 

3.No ball was passed to loosies, so the game wasn't defensive. 

That's very interesting 

Nonu was the main tackler every time? What was the attacking movement? Who was the target each time? What kind of tackle was used? Was his missing tackles poor reads or technical problems or physical inferiority? Did the defence have bad problems? Did the pack leave the defence on the back foot? Which phases did "Bobu" defend? Who did he defend? What was the result of each tackle on the next phase? 

Did New Zealand drift, press, did they have a 9 in the line, 15 in the line? What was the defensive setup from lineups? Did they defend the inside or outside shoulder? What was the pattern used by the Boks? 

Mozart

Are you just a rugby ignorant or do you think we are al fools to believe whatever BS you dream up.

Did you not for a moment think what actually happened in the case where you first claim De Allende missed the tackle on Nonu and posted a video clip proving that you lied.

Now think about this carefully BSter.   Nonu came off second best when he encountered De Allende three months earlier and instead of running at De Allende he tried to run away from meeting him - so he ran across the field.   De Allende could not charge a person directly in such circumstances because it would be meaningless and impossible,

De Allende could not avoid that try because instead of watching Barrettt - JP went out of the defensive lime and did not cover Barrett.

That is what happened as a matter of fact and all your deception and misrepresentation would not avoid the facts here..  

Lurker

Listen dud - you made statements and were caught out.  Now you r\try the normal deception by asking questions which are in the end meaningless.    

De Allende wiped the floor with Nonu and Hansen saw what happened and replaced him - that is  the only fact which counts,     For the rest nobody is interested in the BS you normally comes up with on this site.    

Even the NZ members accepted that I m correct about what happened in the two cases of  Nonu and SBW I listed after vehemently denying it at first.    So accept that your statements are  BS and that you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking we are fools on this site           

Can you read anything and understand what is written?   Afraid not the fib I am referring to was his performances the years after 2015 when the fib was  established with his selection by Coetzee and in the tests he played in under Coetzee he was a flop and made no turnovers.  

By the way your comrade will have a fit about turnovers when he sees the name De Allene as third on that list.   Suggestion - remove the name from your positing before your partner Lurker sees it.

Louw was definitely the Bok of the tournament. Du Preez comes second. Others can be Schalk and Pollard. Nice stats Mozart. It just confirms my impression. Without Louw the All Blacks might have run up a cricket score. It's pretty sad that the guys who did good work get poor recognition and the greatest culprits for our losses are given credit for things they didn't even accomplish. And we wonder why players gladly run away from South Africa.

PS. Damian getting some turnovers doesn't mean he was a great centre or even that he played well. That's the one thing the Stormer's drilled their backs in well, turnovers. Attacking the ball on defence. You still didn't answer my question either. Don't assume that I'd discredit everything a player does because of how I feel about them (I actually don't have many strong feelings a either way about any player). 

Lets get back to the posting about the lies by Mozart and his subordinate or alta ego Lurker.   The discussion was about -

*   the lies about De Allende  posted by the above two; and

*   Louw being the SA player of the Tournament in 2015

I wonder about the above two myself.   There cannot be two idiots that similar in the world    In the case of De Allende the idiots was caught  badly for writing BS on site and inventing lies and deception as a fact.  So the issue as to be sidetracked into something else - a technique Mozart is an expert in and suddenly no more discussion on  De Allende.

So the issue suddenly became Louw - a diversion  to het away from the lies peddled by the two mentioned.   I referred to the myth about the reasons given by Mozart for selecting Louw by Coezee - namely his turnover record  at Bath in 2017.  The problem was that when playing for the Springboks he had no such record in 2016 and 2017.

Si deception sets in again Mozart postd the stats about turnovers made by all players and Louw was second on the list with 13 turnovers in 7 matches.   Not really all that great - less than on average of 2 - but certainly with due regard to his relatively minor contribution in other aspects of the game not enough to make him the SA Player of the series - which he definitely was not.   However, the stupidity was refuted as well - but open the way for the two idiots to sudetracj their earlier BS about De Allende.

Now back to Louw - Mozart was suggesting Louw for selection by Erasmus earlier this year based on the turnover story - but Erasmus saw through the  BS and did not consider him at all

So the two BSters are back to where they were - lying about their pet hate players.  Keep I up sheisters - you are living up to you reputation.             .     

Mozart and Lurker are undoubtedly the same person.

It really is unbelievable that we have posters on this site that will stoop this low to win an on going feud.

I am so unbelievably sick of it.

Lurker looks to be Alucard to me. Lurker is definitely NOT Moz. wee cc is all at sea!

Du Tot is a great 7 in the making.

Allende looks to be the best 12 we have. Esterhuizen has gone off the boil. Rohan could challenge.

Heed the wise words of Beeno oaks and please get over all this bitterness.

Tell you what, Michael ... why don't you follow Mozart's example and bring in a little support.

You will need to change your style slightly, as he has ... but I'm sure with a little effort you'll manage just fine.

Think of the fun you four could have. You say something absurd and immediately back it up with a little support from your new alias. I realize it may be a little tedious logging in and out all the time but I'm sure you can find a way around that.

Then the rest of us can watch you 4 go at it ... all day long.

Good idea, huh??