He said he was impressed by his good performance and the fact that he is South African.
He never played any rugby on senior school boy level in SA and his parents left South Africa when he was a 13 year-old.
The guy has been in the Hurricanes set-up for at least two years and often played for them indicates shows that AO are way behind times when mentioning players. He always identify players once they have been around for years without he being aware of their existence
This is hilarious. I always identify players after they've been around for years? How can you tell? I only signed up in July.
Wes has only played 2 games for the Hurricanes, both in 2016.
Lastly, what difference does it make? I mentioned a South African who had a good game. A South African nobody here has ever mentioned. In fact, I doubt any other member knew about him at all. Seeing as I ordinarily never watch Currie Cup rugby, only Mitre 10, I thought I would mention him for those who may be interested. Clearly you weren't in the know, as you had to read up on him before making this thread. A thread which highlights the lengths you will go to be contrary and disagree with me.
By the way, he left with South Africa at the age of 4. His family moved to Auckland. If anyone wants to check him out, he plays for Wellington.
Foeitog and what about your horde of previous user names. Sorry to feel so deprived - I was merely trying to help.
By the way it again shows that neither you nor Mozart is up to date on any rugby and can come up with anything that you think may help in your arguments.
Mostly you have not seen the games and comments on it, Wonderful!!!!!!!!!!
I don't comment on games I haven't seen. Only those I have. Reading comprehension.
Oops - sorry I was referring to games you say you saw and then give a report nobody else saw in that game. I should have been clearer and said you wrote about what you wished happening in games and then make out it did.
Prove it. Cite one such instance.
Let me think a bit - Louw was wonderful in his first test -
* making 7 tackles missing 2;
* with very limited carries and gaining minimal meters;
* letting Sanchez run past him making no tackle attempt allowing him to score:
* contributing minimally to breakdown ball recovery.
You did not wish to see the above taking place and write fairy tales to the contrary. The above example is just one case - there are numerous cases in every test played this year.
Actually, Sanchez wasn't being marked by Louw. Louw was marking their 12. The Boks were too slow folding around the back of the ruck and we were short of numbers on the openside. You were already debunked post-game. To make matters worse, you tried to shift the blame onto Pollard. Neither player had much of a chance. Pollard had to mark a flat pod's outside runner. If Louw end for 10, 10 hits 12, try.
Here are some of your fairytales:
Half of the above is dreamed up fairy tales and the other half a denial of the true situation.
Lets classify them:-
The normal distortions of what I wrote
1,3,11,12,13,14,18,19,20,24,27,28
Factual - but in denial by you
10, 21,22,23,31
Outright Untruths
7,9,12,13.15,16,25,26,30,32
Of the other 9 - there were some cases where I did not check the teams and made mistakes and admitted it or never commented on before. Please note that of those 10 , 4 dealt with Esterhuizen and three dealt with Goosen.
No 17 was interesting - I saw a photo of Du Preez and commented that it looked like he picked up some weight in Japan. That was in 2013 - when one of AO numerous previous user names was on site. Please give us a true account of all the user names you previously used - that on its own would be entertaining. That is starting from the very beginning.
I never write anything about Folau other than to respond to you. in the first case you started demonizing Folau in 2013 and the difference was that both Dave and I did not buy y our crap. The case went quiet - but under every user name you repeated your crap about Folau. When you tried the stunt again this year - I nicely asked you to refrain from doing it and reminded you that you tried the stunt numerous times in the past. When that happened I did check what happened statistically - but never really said anything further about him. I based my assessment on the Folau achievements subsequent to his first year as a test player and his wonderful ability catching balls in the air, That was enough to set off the normal freak attacks on Folau by you.
By the way you really have a wonderful ability to dream up things in rugby matches - but it seems you have the same ability to distort what members write on site, Best advice - stick to facts and forget about distortions,
Well, well, well - who was Esterhuizen marking? Louw was within two meters from where Sanchez passed him and did not move once to try and make a tackle when he saw Sanchez coming his way, When I did compare that with a mistake made by Du Toit in 2014 the hysterics by you and Mozart was hilarious.
I made an error, it was Eben in place of where I said Pollard was . Faf, André and Willie immediately moved to the blindside after the ball had been grounded by Argentina. The next phase was A9 to A2 (Flat Pod: A8-A2-A5). The second phase saw A7 coming around the corner at pace to link up with A3-A1-A4. A10-A15-A12 were underneath them. A7-A3-A1-A4 pulled in S7-S3-S5-S4. S4 was the outer defender. S6 (Louw) was left to defend acres of space with no support for at least two metres wither side of himself. A10 ran into that space. He had A15 and A12 outside of him. No matter what Louw had done it was a try. If Eben was able to get hold of Sanchez, he still had A15 and A12 outside. André was where he was supposed to be. To make matters worse, before A9 passed to Sanchez, André can be seen ordering the Boks to quickly fan out on the openside. He was the only Bok alert to the danger.
So you ran for cover again. And your wonderful description did not help. The Sanchez try was scored on the blindside of the Springboks maul - so all your fancy description of how Andre did wonderfully well in organizing the openside defense is really farcical.
You have still not dispelled the fact why Louw 2 meters or less from where Sanchez passed him did nothing to try and prevent the scoring of the try. He got exonerated completely - if Du Toit was where Louw was he would have been crucified on aa daily basis by Mozart and you since that test.
LMAO
Actually, if Steph was where Louw was, I would not have "crucified" him. The Sanchez try you harped on about happened after a failed high ball catch by Willie in our 22. There have been numerous instances Steph has failed on defence and I have said nothing. Such as his numerous open field tackles after a kick. He was one of the interior chasers. He has failed almost all of them. In fact, I can't think of a successful one off t he top of my head. It's all situational. What can the player do vs what are the opposition doing. Expecting Louw to defend three backs in front of him with at least one wing further out is ridiculous. There wasn't one option he had that would have worked.
Esterhuizen wasn't at fault for any Puma try in either game. You are reaching desperately again to pin the blame on a player that did nothing wrong.
Listen - please read what I wrote. You and Mozart are desprerately dreaming up tings to stick on Du Toit. When I asked him on the lack of any Louw response to the Sanchez attack - and referred to attacks launched by him and you on Du Toit - he claimed that there was no similarity between the two cases and his obvious servant supported him in that - but fact is neither of you two could support nay evidence as to what Mozart stated.
Esterhuizen may not have been at any fault because of a try scored by the Pumas. However, there can be no dispute that he had too low a tackle count and too high a missed tackle ratio. You could carry on about how good he was - but he was definitely not Erasmus's first choice inside center, I have watched this guy from his Under 20 days and he has always had the same deficiencies - pace deficiency, resultant defense deficiency and some ball handling problems. White even thought he was a deficient center and tried him out as a 7 loosie. One would have thought that you in your hero-worship of White would take White's view into consideration.
I'm not dreaming these thing should. I posted a video which proved what I said was true. I could have posted a lot more! Every word I have spoken about Steph has been a plain as day fact. No bias, no prejudice, just calling a spade a spade. Your are too emotionally bound to Steph to be objective. Not once have you ever pointed out an error or admitted one happened. Not once. Yet you will go so far as to rate André the worst player on the field who missed all of his tackle when he was one of the best. Shocking.
Respect isn't easily won, particularly from me. You ruin any chance you could ever have of getting it. For what? Honesty Mike. You let yourself down through a lack of honesty. Rassie is anti-Meyer in your mind. Your mind is ruled by tribe x; tribe y thinking. Them versus us. You make a lot of comprehension errors because you scan for trigger words like an SJW.
Go and see what you wrote about the Dunedin tries in 2012 and come back and tell me you did not dream up what happened there. That is just one example - there were endless others. One has to be actually careful when reading your postings since so much of it is cloud 9 stories.
