I covered this a little a short while ago, but wanted to expand on that by asking what players the forum are most interested in. Who do you want to talk about? What matchups do you want to discuss?
Could be very interesting. I hope Rassie has the sense to make good selections. I don't actually enjoy reviewing the rugby equivalent of a homicide as much as I do good performances.
AO
Neither you of Mozart is capable of proper rugby analysis.since you are guided by -
* denigrated of your pet hate players;
* incapable of identifying practical performances of the field of play; and
* total ignorance of what rugby analysis is.
So nobody can expect anything from you and less from the serial liar Mozart.
The problem remains - my responses are always clear on what happened on the field of play - and I do not deliberately try and falsify issues.. However, the same cannpt eb said of the three members with serious pet hate agendas.
I would give a full description of what I saw happening - even after looking at matches a second time - nd then make deductions as to what happened and if necessary criticize or praise players - in many cases I would back up with ESPN data to support what I have written.
The members with pet hate agendas - write their own version of what happened and in the process produce their own data. Fact is I would rather use the ESPN data than the data produced by what Mozart claimed being the three who regard themselves as the best rugby analysts in the world - since they see things and identify problems nobody else in the world see,
One cannot really combat such BS at all other than at times to quote stats, AO came up with a myth that Frans Steyn made three line breaks in a certain match when in fact there was no such line breaks by him - nobody else saw those. There was none reflected in ESPN also.
There are many similar statements put on site and clearly was the result of prejudice and to combat those always lead to zero - since the BSters deny what they themselves have written .
You're right, I do have an agenda. It's to talk rugby. Your twaddlings have been proven to out of phase with images and footage of the game. You've been caught out repeatedly with both. So no, what you say does not reflect what "actually happens of the field". Not even close. You've actually been incredible sloppy as you have also proven to be innumerate. Here's the thing Mikey, I can back every word I say up. Everything. I have already provided sufficient evidence for what I believe. You resort to deceit. You are caught in a lie every day.
Worse than all of the above is how you divert every thread away from its intended topic. You tried to divert another Mozart thread into a Meyer hate-binge. You just can't help yourself. You hate these people so much that you have to tell everyone even when nobody is talking about them. You need therapy.
I cannot believe that you can back up anything you say without reverting to cloud 9 description of things that never happened, There are always an agenda on your part and that agenda makes your statements worthless.
Just two examples - you said h\there were three line breaks made by Fat Fransie Steyn in the game between the Stormers and the Sharks a few years ago. Nobody else in the world saw those three line-breaks and that is a fact. ESPN said it never happened. So what is believable - your cloud 9 story or facts.
Morne had a terrible defensive record since 2013 - yet you credit him as being tops in defense, Louw was totally useless in the Argentina test - you claimed he was the second best player in the first test and he was good in the second test. Every journalist and expert said there are serious question marks about his performances - but you claimed there were none. All the above are very real fairy tales without substance by you.
I have no problem with rugby analysis done objectively - my problem is analysis based on prejudice amounts to zero analysis and that is what you specialize in.
Oh dear Lügnerin, you've got yourself in a pickle again. Firstly, I never said Frans made 3 linebreaks. I did say that Damian was edged by Frans. When they encountered one another, Frans had the edge. I detailed everything. Twice. Also, ESPN is not a reliable source of information as far as stats are concerned. I know it will blow your mind, but it is not even close to ironclad. Everything they produce is up for debate, which I always encourage people to do. They were caught out with Louw's metres gained, and you quickly made a fool of yourself because you worship ESPN thoughtlessly.
Secondly, Morné was excellent in 2013. Everything you've brought up has been proven wrong. I don't know why you keep harping on about him, as it only ever brings you shame. For your own sake, keep him in the past.
Louw had a good first test and quiet second test. I have detailed why too many times now. Again, you've been debunked on everything you've said. You're were quite sloppy in your attacks on Louw.
No Lügnerin, you are not objective. You squak the same words repeatedly, it doesn't make it any less wrong.
Edged meaning what? Landing on his backside twice while attempting to tackle De Allende. ESPN is not a reliable source of info - but you are - unbelievable arrogance - not so?
They were never caught out in anything - they proved Louw was piss poor.and that was a fact. By the way shall I quote for you what was in the paper today about Louw:-
" Pieter-Steph du Toit could also come in for Francois Louw at flank, with Louw having had an indifferent game against Los Pumas in Mendoza."
Problem is that Louw was also indifferent in the Durban test.
As to dear Morne - he was a major reason for the Springboks losing the Johannesburg test through rotten defense and piss-poor decision-making. Why did he not make a relieving kick when it was seconds before halftime and there would have been no line-out before halftime. His poor decision cost the springboks seven points. Why did he miss a tackle on ben Smith and allowed Smith to score a try. Why instead of tackling Barrett did he slap him on the back wishing him well on his way to score a try. ESPN gave that as a missed tackle - but the effort was what I described herein.
You are indeed welcome to write what you want - but please keep to what actually happened and not what you dreamed up as what happened,.
Morné cost us the test with poor defending? Find me one example.
Auge....
Could you do an analysis on any set piece plays by both sides off lineout and scrums if possible.
Thanks in advance.
No problem Xavi. Scrums aren't my specialty but I'll log everything and bring it here.
Cheers dude.
Looking for some set plays that don't initiate contact outside 12 channel for my U14s. Besides a scissors there aren't many.
Ah scum plays! I look for the same thing. I'm not very good analysing the scrums themselves, unless it's obvious.
This year the Lineout is introduced (restricted with no contest) and also flankers so now they are a full 15 a side.
When you initiate contact outside 12 channel it's a big job for forwards to get to the breakdown and secure the ball.
We want to try have forwards from the front of the lineout peeling around from the blindside (Kiwi ball) running at their outer pillar defence( their outside shoulder) to truck it up one more phase before unleashing our backline.
I see. I'll have a look at the lineouts for the last test as well. If I remember correctly there were a few lineouts where the Boks and the Argentinians did more of what you are looking for. I'll make that a priority for the upcoming test.
I credit you coaching, I'm not cut out for that. My training sessions would be know across the land as Kamp Kindersklaverei.
A worry for safe guarding officers I'm sure.
It's very different from the coaching I remember as a kid.
It is obvious he missed tackles on both Ben Smith and Barrett when they scored tries. Fact - who missed the actual tackles:-
* Alberts made a farce of attempting tot tackle Read and passed the ball to Ben Smith who just ran through Morne to score.
* De Villiers went out of the defensive line = leaving a gap for Barrett to run through and the first potential tackler was Morne who made a feeble attempt like I said earlier and Then Barrett ran over Engelbrecht.
Blame for the first try - both Alberts and Morn e to be blamed.
Blame for the second try = All of De Villiers, Morne and Engelbrecht was to be blamed for that one.
By the way the tackle stats for that game are clear - der Morne made 7 tackles and missed 4. In the four are included the two described above.
No amount of fairy tails will change that. .
How many times do we have to discuss this Ellis Park try? From now on I'm just calling you Groundhog.
Auge, naturally a fan of Groundhog Day will love this site....our theme song should be " Coming Around Again "
PS. you can also serenade "I've got you babe " to oom mike...or Moz, whatever blows your hair back.....or, what was the piano song again?
I'd rather drag my eyeballs across the Sahara Desert than serenade Lügnerin!
No doubt the thought of it makes ou Lüg weak at the knees. Though I must insist, the feeling is unrequited.
So Morne did not slapped Barrett on the back when attempted tackle was a farce and he did not miss the tackle on Smith? Any amount of fairy tale writing by you will not eliminate those facts.
So Morne did not slapped Barrett on the back when attempted tackle was a farce and he did not miss the tackle on Smith? Any amount of fairy tale writing by you will not eliminate those facts.
Mr.lügnerin , as your general practitioner I am obliged to remind you that you are in violation of treatment protocol.
