Are great centres a thing of the past?

Space and time are more limited and that only emphasises the importance of centre play. Compare New Zealand with Crotty and Goodhue compared to SBW and Crotty. The Damian example is a long standing one. He ate up space, which bunched up our attack, making it too lateral in the process. Saffy appears to make excuses for those not worthy of a Bok cap. 

Brian Driscoll only recently retired, and when in his prime he could tear up defences. 

One of the problems with inside centres is they have to be big enough to tackle from on, so it is not just less time and space. These creatine specimens have lost playmaking skill. 

There are very good 12s out there. The problem is in SA they like runners who die with the ball. They flock to every exciting new runner. That's what propelled JJ, Damian and Kriel. So too many wing converts. Passing has long been an after thought, and centre has been a glaring weak spot in our production line for decades. 

Listen if you want to carry on with you standard campaigns against Kriel and De Allende why  not say so in the heading - then I for one will not even bother to read it.

You have your own ideas - often enough based on false premises - and you are obviously entitled to it - but please don't try and force it down on other posters as well.

If the two were as bad as you claim they are - why does Erasmus prefer and actually pick them to play?   Do you two know more about the game  than Erasmus does?       

"but please don't try and force it down on other posters as well."

This is priceless. Do as I say, don't do as I do. 

Why does Rassie persist with the selection? Simple, he is making a mistake selecting Damian. Furthermore, nothing I have said about either player has been proven errant. You have yet to disprove a single detail . Quite the contrary, you yourself have been caught repeatedly in "false premises". When caught, you Beginn forcing your unfounded assertions onto anyone you can. 

If you disagree with me, then discuss it or leave it. It makes no difference to me. I'm fine with a debate, not these childish tantrums which are becoming common place of late. 

Mozart

You obviously lost some info during the last few months.   Louw would not have been recalled for the AB test if Whiteley was available and I doubt if he would b e part of the EOYT squad.

Similarly - I do not think Mostert could have started if De Jager was available to play.   Just after his appointment  Erasmus indicated that he hoped to have Etzebeth and De Jager as lock partners.

He went further and asked the Lions and Stormers to try out Mostert and Du Toit at 7 - since he realized  that there is a problem at 7.   It in fact confirmed that he views the lock combination differently from what it was in the tests thus far played.  Unfortunately Mostert did no really passed the test at 7 - while Du Toit did.

I consistently stuck with what Erasmus said and did.   He obviously still has to deal with the issues you raised  in future, but I am pretty certain he would act as he thought and said initially.

Sorry - but this diversion did nit help.      

AO

I like to keep to facts - fairy tales and prejudice do not result in constructive debate and in-depth discussion of issues.  

No fairytales, no prejudice. All facts. 

Mostert is also the lock unable to set up driving mauls - he is physically too ineffective to do that.   Your story about the lock situation is unfortunately not proven as facts - since it is as per normal with you slanted.  

Mostert is a Matfield type of lock. Mobile, and more like a loose forward. 

Matfield was a line out Master- but Mostert hits the ruck and tight loose. Some of his contributions go unnoticed- especially by the cliched thinkers that just see weight as a criterion of tight forward play. 

CC

I have never read anything on your part about negative elements in Esterhuizen's game that were in fact clear in tests he played in.   So how can you be relied on to reflect any impartiality on the issue?

Mozart tried to divert the issue by referring to Louw and Mostert,  but he was unsuccessful.         

Mostert isn't the most physically dominant lock you'll ever see. I wasn't very impressed at all with his performance in the second Puma test, and actually said it was a mistake for Rassie to have moved Steph for him. However, he has grown into the role and does a significant amount of work all over the field. He isn't very error prone either, and his physicality has been sufficient for whatever the demands of the situation. 

Realistically only Snyman can replace him, but it remains to be see how significant the loss of Mostert would be overall if that were to happen. I'd be open to Mostert and 7 and Snyman at 5 considering Steph's mobility at 7 has been exploitable in each game this year at least once, quite often more. The only way we'll find out whether this works is if Rassie plays them thus.

Matfield is a player that would surprise many of his detractors if they were to actually study his game. I've many an occasion followed him to see what he was doing, he was no slouch in any phase of lock play. The 2014 EOYT saw him securing a significant number of rucks and plugging manly holes on defence, some game saving. We need these smart players in the pack as the way we play needs good decision makers. 

Whenever I read comments from Mozart and AO I am amazed by the things they claim happen on the field of play - which only they saw happening  and other people did not see.

What actually happened is never mentioned in their praise song.   Matfield actually entering rucks or making turnovers in breakdown situations was totally foreign to what actually happened.  In fact since his return from retirement was totally different - he often together with Alberts stood around behind mauls and their contributions were in fact totally missing.  In rolling maul situations Matfield was pushed out and often enough landed on the grass outside the mauls.   His contributions to line-out play also became farcical at times and I mentioned in three cases where he actually missed or fuddled critical line out balls on own throw.  Mozart's  excuses for what happened in those line-outs beat the limits of farce completely.  

Sure Matfield is like Mostert  and when compared to Matfield in the years after his return from retirement - they were very much on par insofar as performance is concerned.   

I do not think - unlike Meyer, who picked players whom he was acquainted with and what he claimed he knew what they were  capable of (even when the capability was gone years before) - I do not think Ersmus will fall for that stunt.

Mind you I now know why the two of you are such fervent supporters of Mostert - you think he is a reincarnation of Matfield.  Great joke that one.  

AO - Du Toit really is a smart player and Mostert cannot even compared with him from that perspective.   

Another case of glorification on what I regularly call fairy tales.     

Duplication

How come the two of you turned this center issue into lock and loosie selection?  Really laughable!!!!!!!!!! 

Why don't you reread your own posts and find out. Another foot gone. 

Please go back to what I originally wrote in response to the Mozart opening posting and follow from there what Mozart wrote in response.   You may then find out that the joke is really on you.