Auge Ratings - RSA vs AUS (2018)

I thought Steph was outstanding. Clearly MOM. He was hugely physical and busy throughout. He had a couple of those bust coverages eary in the first half, but I didn't see it again for the remainder of the game. Really knocked Australia of their game.

1. Beast (6.5): Not his strongest showing, but scrummed well. 
2. Marx (7.0): Scrapped hard, linked up well with the backs. Very unlucky with that offload in the Wallaby 22. Lineout throwing still needs work.
3. Malherbe (7.5): Strong on defence, made effective ruck cleans clearing away Pocock from Channel 1 a couple of times. Good scrumming. Work around the field is still his biggest attribute. 
4. Eben (7.5): Very physical, as usual. Very disruptive and forced some errors. Our best jumper in the lineout, which Australia had little answer for.
5. Mostert (7.0): Busy around the field on defence. Not his best test, failing to standout as he did in the All Black test.
6. Kolisi (7.5): A few errors, but very disruptive as well. Some good turnovers, important tackles and threatened to spark a game clinching attack.
7. Steph (8.5): Initially had a couple of those blown coverages rushing out the line, but I didn't see that again for the remainder of the game. Very physical from beginning to end. Continual hassled and pressured the Wallabies and carried very strongly. Appears to be growing into the blindside flank position. Clearly the most influential player on the field. 
8. Notshe (4.0): I can scarcely recall one contribution aside from one good tackle. We missed Whiteley immensely, and its remarkabke that we were able to achieve such dominance when effectively a man down with Notshe on the field.
9. Faf (7.0): Errors still abound, but he makes up for it with his speed and pressure. Heckled the Wallabies and forced some errors. Was a nuisance when Willie was in the bin. 
10. Pollard (7.5): A few errors, really letting the Wallabies off the hook. However, was very strong ball-in-hand and created a crucial try seemingly out of nothing. Still our best flyhalf. Good defence.
11. Dyantyi (7.5): Some great defence when the Wallabies threatened to breakout. Prevented a crucial try in the corner. Threatened to breakout throughout the game. Generally good under the high ball, although out jumped by the Kangaroo legs of Folau.
12. Esterhuizen (7.8): Was, alongside Steph, our most physical defender. Flung Aussies around all game and marshalled the rush well. Good containment and tracking. Not many opportunities ball in hand but carried strongly when he did. Also made a couple of errors, but in a game of errors, was generally accurate. Excellent kick chase to catch Australia deep in their half. Good ruck cleans and securing of lose ball saving Kriel's blushes. 
13. Kriel (5.5): Strong in contact and quick, but still struggling with the defensive side of the position. He is looking more comfortable in the position than in the past, but needs to work on his defence. Was disappointed by these errors. 
14. Kolbe (6.5): Was lively on attack without being too threatening. Punched above his weight on defence. Overall, better than expected. 
15. Willie (7.5): So much of our game still runs through Willie. Our best creative force.
16. Mbonami (4.0): Very disappointing. His worst game all year by far. Failed to make positive contributions. Blew a maul to apply some serious pressure. 
17. Kitshoff (7.5): Made his mark quickly, upstaged Beast. Strong in all phases of the game as we needed an injection of power to turn the screw on the Wallabies.
18. Louw (4.0): Failed to get involved. A couple of tackles at best. Seemed to struggle a bit in the scrum.
19. Snyman (0.0): Not enough time to contribute enough for a rating. Did absolutely nothing wrong.
20. Van Staden (4.0): A couple of tackles, looked overpowered by the Wallabies at times. Nothing of note.

Wallaby Ratings:

1. Sio (5.5)
2. Fainga'a (6.0)
3. Tupou (6.0)
4. Rodda (6.0)
5. Coleman (5.0)
6. Hanigan (5.5)
7. Hooper (7.0)
8. Pocock (7.5)
9. Genia (7.0)
10. Beale (4.0)
11. Koroibete (7.0)
12. Toomua (6.0)
13. Hodge (6.5)
14. Folau (4.0)
15. Petty (7.0)

AO

Are you nuts or something - Esterhuizen was totally useless - the worst performing player of the springbok team.  He lost ball possession twice - got penalized twice =- his ball carries were near to worthless and his tackling  ineffective.  Far too often his tackles were worthless since it did not stop the balls to be passed I the process of tackling.

I know you live on cloud 9 = but this is really carrying BS to a new high.   I would say that Esterhuizen was any time as bad as Beale and in some respects worse.  Beale did not cause the number of ball possession losses Esterhuizen did.  

So dream on and create skyscrapers without foundation.  It will not make the display of Est erhuizen any better than it really was.   

He conceded one turnover due to poor ruck support. Picked off by Pocock. He concede 2 penalties, but so too Eben. Only 1 more than Steph. Steph also conceded 1 turnover. By your reckoning, Steph is al most as "bad" as Esterhuizen! 

Ou Maaik, watch the leadup to Dyantyi's intercept try. Who drives Aus #2 back in the tackle to create a pressure ruck that allows Faf to fan out into the line and race up on Beale, forcing him to consider the wide pass outside?

So Esterhuizen makes a bog ordinary tackle and is no credited with a try assist.  Try again - you are hopeless in that case.   

Of course he wasn't. Kurtley was credited with the try assist.

So why even  mention him in the saga?

Simply to show you that as early as 15 seconds Esterhuizen's defence (which you've gone out of your way to describe as worthless and ineffective) contributed positively to a telling moment in the game.

No, Faf should get most of the credit for the pressure he put on Beale. But these things usually happen in a sequence, where every event contributes to the outcome. In this case it starts with Malherbe and Kolisi driving Hooper back in the tackle, then at next contact with Esterhuizen wrapping up and driving Aus #2 back, all of which built pressure and forced them to stop attacking and try to clear.

I said I will look again at the match and then make up my mind about what really happened.

Cannot really blame anyone but Beale's skip pass that caused the problem.   Pressure on him to do that is what can only be called imaginary.

Freifrau Lügnerin makes the simple things so difficult. 

You try to create yarns to indicate how good Esterhuizen was.  In the meantime I looked at the game again.  I missed out initially on how players just ran past or away from him without even any attempt at making a tackle on his part. 

What did Esterhuizen really produced in the game.  Looking at things objectively and the answer is really near to zero of real consequence.  

It is the simple things that should count - not the dreams of things that was simple that makes it complicated.   The dreams entail a list of BS items of unbelievable length,        .    

Sure, the back with the most tackles, who routinely rushed up quickly and accurately to catch and pressure the Wallabies behind the gainline had no effect, at all, on the game. This is a disgraceful interpretation. Only you would go to such extremes. To make matters worse, these weren't the cream puff "Whiteley-Pollard-Steph-Mostert come save me" tackles of Damian. Esterhuizen can be relied upon to defend on his own, and he can defend every opposition player with authority. It makes such a difference and increases the threat of our defensive line. His physicality was immense. I'm sure the Wallabies didn't appreciate being thumped to the deck. It changes the psychology of the opposition. With Pollard and Damian at 10 and 12 the opposition don't relish attacking the inner channels. This reminds me of 2007, when the Butch-Frans-Fourie combination discouraged the opposition in a similar manner, but cut them off, forcing them into the killing alley where our forwards lurked. With Pollard-Esterhuizen-Am, we finally have a midfield that can exert pressure and constructively contribute on attack. 

Happy fairy tales day