Nice post. I must have covered this game to death. It shows pretty much how his Super rugby campaign was as well. He was better in the RC than Super rugby, but got a little better in the WC. He never progressed further then that. South African media has never covered any of these issues. They are outlandish ignorant and/or dishonest.
Its not that he's a bad defender. R ather, that's not the only problem.
De Allende is not an intelligent player. He does not have ability to make the correct decision.
Evidence of that is present in almost all facets of his play. He makes poor defensive reads, does not know when to crash and when to pass, cannot put players into space and never runs good supporting lines.
I'm trying to remember DDA ever having been there off of somebody's after a break and i'll be fucked if i can remember even a single instance of that happening. Maybe it's because any positive is completely drowned out by the ridiculous amount of stupid shit he's done.
It's an all round lack of instinct and awareness that he sufferes from.
The bulk of that instinct is innate and a small amount can be made up for with good coaching.
Comparing DDA and Pollard at 12, you can easily see which of the two has the instinct of a test player and which doesnt.
DDA is another one of those guys that looks the part and we know that in SA we prefer players that look the part to players that do the business. Thats why Jaco Kriel will never be a Bok again. That's why so many posters here are still going on about how Mostert is not test quality. It's the same old movie.
It's also the reason why we dont want to pick the Dups brothers. Huge guys are not supposed to be skillful. If you are a skillfull ball in hand forward then you don't look the part. There must be something wrong with you and if there isnt then we'll find something.
For three years now, many of us here have been saying about DDA what Coetzee completely failed to see and what Erasmus, who has watched all the games we have, has only just concluded.
Anyway, DDA wont be back. We've seen the last of him.
Good riddance i say.
Pakie
I have stopped counting as to how many times this test was discussed in the past on site. Everyone and the rest has admitted that De Allende made 15 tackles in the match and missed 6. Everyone ahs agreed that 6 is too high a missed tackle ratio.
2 of the four missed tackles was preceded by missed tackles by other players with de Allende trying to cover the missed tackles. The two was when Jannie du Plessis and Pollard missed tackles.
However, I cannot see why only de Allende was targeted for missed tackles in that game. Pollard made 11 tackles and missed 4 - which was anytime as bad as de Allende was.
I think the targeting allegation is a bit vague. You put two circles around De Allende - but in both cases the ball was passed to the outside and that is where the tackle stats of Kriel and Le Roux became pertinent as well - 8 tackles made and 4 missed. Looking at the stats alone the fact is that the flyhalf and two centers combined made 32 tackles missing 12 - which as a whole is not acceptable either..
In any event the situation is meaningless insofar as the present environment sic concerned.- everyone think that de Allende on average was poor in the latter part of the tests this year - so you are flogging a dead horse here.
However, looking at the ESPN stats again there are indeed one aspect worth discussing. In the relevant test Etzebeth made 15 tackles and one wonders how many tests he played this year to get to that number of tackles he made in one test. He was very good in his first test this year and then went off the boil.
I do not know how many minutes Matfield played in that game. He was pretty hopeless in the game - making 3 tackles and taking one line-out. De Jager replaced him and made 18 tackles and taking 4 line-outs.
However, that is not what is for discussion - what should be is the present form of Etzebeth compared to his performances in 2015. In 2015 in the three RC tests made 32 tackles and he missed 1 - a further example that Etzebeth this year was not what he was in 2015. His ball carries in 2015 was also much more effective than it was this year.
Let me say in the first instance I am a supporter of Etzebeth - but to my mind he must show a return to where he was in 2015 - at present he is way short of that target.
2 of the four missed tackles was preceded by missed tackles by other
players with de Allende trying to cover the missed tackles.
Utter bullshit. Show me those two tackles.
Your excuse back in 2015 was that he missed tackles because he had to get up from other tackles, and that he attempted tackles no one else would have.
Now in 2018 you add a third to the list - he tried to cover missed tackles by other players.
None of it is true. Just stop with nonsense. Please.
Damian is a poor defender. Technically and mentally. He lost that game all on his own. There is absolutely no way to defend his performance against Australia, he was the worst player on the pitch. However, in what is so typical of SA, he comes away the hero. The fans were optimistic after the loss, and this was hailed as the best centre pairing in world rugby. Unbelievable.
We don't need to carry on at all. It was just a little vindication from a neutral for what a few of us have been pointing out for years in the face of substantial opposition.
If I remember correctly, Pollard received the criticism for the loss.
Mozart
I think that everybody agrees that De Allende did not produce this year - so that is an old story. My question has constantly been who should be his replacement - there are preciously few options. Most of the options - like Steyn and Esterhuizen are even worse performers. So the option is Serfontein and a wild card in Willemse.
There is also an option of Venter at 13 - but his defense has always been patchy.
One can only wait and see what comes up in Super Rugby and the 2-19 tests
