The Lunatic claims are total in this case again - Idiots always speak nonsense - this one is the biggest of them all. He said the 2015 losers against amongst others Japan performed better than the 2019 WC winners.
Just Idiot Speaker - where are the tries scored story - why left that out, Happy Total Idiots Day to you.
“ but the players has much more freedom to use their natural talent than they ever had under previous coaches - who either had no real game plans and if they had implemented same with total disregard to individuality and talents of players." “
The final of the RWC was probably the first game under Rassie that Faf wasn’t kicking the leather off the ball ad nauseam. When was his natural talent used? In the final or during all the other games under Rassie? Careful with your answer now.
You missed most of the RC and even most of the WC games Ceradyne? Just work out the number of tries scored and by whom and you will see you were wrong. There were too many mistakes made by Springboks in the Wales test to do what was expected from them and to be quite frank Faf was a major problem in that game. That reduced the Welsh game to an arm-wrestle. Please note what Swys de Bruin said about the Erasmus master plan he discussed with them already in May 2018. There is references to that in anther article put on this site as well.
The only time the Erasmus plan misfired was when the players failed to execute it properly - eg in the Wales test - in all other tests it produced 15 man rugby, The key was that the players had to buy into the plan and they did. The final was a total indication what the plan actually entailed executed to perfection,
You are a joke. 15 man rugby. Skop 'N Pop was the plan of the day. That has been the nature of his tenure; the Stompie model. Hence attack figures are out of phase with the modern game, behind the Boks of yesteryear. Is that really a surprise? The Stompies annually languish at the bottom of super rugby's attack stats. The model simply does not produce well-rounded rugby. We don't play well rounded rugby. The most all out attack of the year was the Japanese QF. In the final, we still won through defence, territory, set pieces and breakdown pressure. The game that exists in your mind does not exist in this universe.
“ Posted by: clevermike (38672 posts) Nov 05, 2019, 11:52
You missed most of the RC and even most of the WC games Ceradyne? Just work out the number of tries scored and by whom and you will see you were wrong. “
There we go again. Your first port of call when you’re in a corner is always to fall back on your usual MO. Obfuscation.
Just answer the question. When did Rassie allow Faf the freedom to use his “natural talent”? In the games leading up to the final or during the final.
Ceradyne
In all games bar perhaps the Wales test where there was a decision to kick rather than keep the ball in hand. In all other games - even in the RC - a ball in hand game was used,
The the RC the Boks were last in most attacking stats. Their numbers were down from 2015. They did not play "ball-in-hand" expansive rugby. In the two warm-up games, their numbers fluctuated. Their output was down even from that in the second Puma test, and, surprisingly, their run and pass figures dipped very low against the Japanese in their first encounter (74, 70).
In the WC opener, their numbers were up. Yet, as we see, the backs were not getting ball. Mapimpi had 0.9% team possession. Two measly runs. Am 2.8%. Kolbe had an unusual high for us at 4.5%. It was incumbent upon Kolbe to generate our entire offence. We were quite toothless, inspite of New Zealand struggling to get out of their half. This was another game where Damian was given a glut of front-foot ball to bash aimlessly away, at 5.7% (a little lower than usual). His run percentage being 71.4%. Lets put it this way, our passing percentages across the backline were:
Usage of stats does not determine match outcomes. All the above is meaningless and confusing even yourself.
What was the point difference in the final result?
Of course stats usage doesn't determine the outcome of the match, the match produces the stats. 
You always divert from the topic Lügnerin. We aren't talking scoreboard, we are talking gameplans, playstyle. You raised the issue, so at least try to stay on topic. If you can.
What was the point difference dimness?
"The second issue is that I referred to a master game plan developed by Erasmus and mentioned by Swys de Bruin on TV which contained basically the same issues as mentioned in the above report. Fact is their is a sound game plan - but the players has much more freedom to use their natural talent than they ever had under previous coaches - who either had no real game plans and if they had implemented same with total disregard to individuality and talents of players."
AO
So impressed with what I wrote that you repeated it twice on site, I must admit the 100% content is amazing,
Impressed? Hardly, your grammar is the product of quasi-sentience at best. Always must I refocus your attention on your own malformed bleatings. At least you wrote clever in lowercase.
Is only me that thinks using the above stats is misleading?
What was the context?
Rassie clearly had a plan to kick the shit out of the ball during the group, quarters and semis...with an eye on a switch-up in the final.
That was not Meyer's plan at all.
These arguments around stats are silly.
Tyson never landed many punches. Kallis wasn't a prolific boundary hitter.
Stats are ONLY useful when viewed through the lens of context.
One would think that'd be obvious.
Well, it's easier than posting diagrams. I do have every attacking series logged and screenshots taken, but these suffice for now. It's more accessible to other members, and I don't have the time to annotate those screenshots as yet. If anyone wants to debate me further on this, by all means, produce. I know very well what the Boks have and have not been doing. I don't create perceptions of things that aren't there.
Amazing - the most prejudiced individual on site is not creating perceptions and things that aren't there. That has always been his stock in trade LMAO
Another yawn I have no desire to read
Biased and prejudicial bullshit
Saffy, I'm sure there's something else you could be done. Perhaps cleaning your knuckles.
@Lügnerin: Tell me again how Esterhuizen lost the game we won in Brisbane, South Africa. Or how Jake dropped Morné in 2007 for the RWC. Or how Morné was transitioning to soccer. Or how Morné conceded a try to lose a game after he was subbed with the scores level. You are caught out each and every day!
Picking my nose would be more productive than reading your prejudicial shit
It burns doesn't it. You can't stay away, yet you can't hit back. It's all the enjoyment I need to keep posting! 
Sies!
The Boks have scored many great tries under Rassie. Any idea that he always plays high up and under is plain dumb.
The Trio must just accept they bombed out badly in trashing Rassie, Malherbe, Du Toit and Allende.
Game set and match. Next!
The Bok's movement, structure and shape ball-in-hand is poor Sitzsack. Stodgy Stompie ball doesn't lend itself to effective attacking rugby.
Foeitog
The idiot stay dim. What is the objective of playing rugby? First of all is to win matches and how is it done? By in the first instance scoring tries and prevent opposing teams to score same.
Now why is the dunce quoting stats but avoiding stats relating to scoring of tries like the plague. Because he does not think before he writes BS like "The Bok's movement, structure and shape ball-in-hand is poor Sitzsack. Stodgy Stompie ball doesn't lend itself to effective attacking rugby."
He quoted the stats for the WC in 2015 compared to 2019 - and I will add the following stats that prove he is talking has normal shit:-
2015 WC - Tries scored = 27
Opposing teams = 6
2019 WC - Tries scored = 33
Opposing teams = 4
How can a team score more tries be playing the BS you trumpet - idiot?
And how come the team defend better anyway.
Augenöffner
Rugby Legend
5162 posts
"The second issue is that I referred to a master game plan developed by Erasmus and mentioned by Swys de Bruin on TV which contained basically the same issues as mentioned in the above report. Fact is their is a sound game plan - but the players has much more freedom to use their natural talent than they ever had under previous coaches - who either had no real game plans and if they had implemented same with total disregard to individuality and talents of players."
You see Blue? He just cannot help himself. He cannot bask in the World Cup win, so has to fish for another argument. He wants to get personal. It's who he is at heart: bitter, vengeful, spiteful and self-absorbed.
Now, to the task at hand. Lügnerin, you once used Willie as proof that Meyer limited the talent of he possessed. You also used Pollard. I think Willie is a great starting point, as he is the connector of our attack. If we play expansively, it will show up in his numbers. Every film breakdown I have done - of all of his games - has shown this to be true. What was Willie's output in 2015?
2015 SEASON
Where was the attacking prowess of Willie under Rassie? As we see from the team possession stat, Meyer's Boks were more inclined to keep hold of the ball. It's remarkably lopsided. I've already posted information concerning the RC stats of every season of the competition, breaking down the rankings of each statistical category, placing them in context of their opponents. I've uncovered just about everything. What is your point of refutation? You've been horribly out-gunned. Why you chose to return to this beaten argument remains a mystery.
Rassie has not improved our backplay, rather, he has regressed it. In fact, as poor as Coetzee's reign was, his 2017 season saw the last good output of attack. Damian had, statistically, the best season of his career. Why not under Rassie? If you truly are the clever man you think you are, you'll abandon this tiresome mess of an agenda, a hateful and bitter agenda, and stay down.