Who was supposed to tackle Marchant to prevent the Quirke try ….there was no overlap …….who was that player lined up on Marchant.
Here’s a hint from JDV’s commentary ‘Damien de Allende stepping in’.
That should be enough for a name…..no bullshit….just a name.
Actually Smith was in the second wing cut out of the movement, a dummy non runner…..the pass was straight out to Slade. Jantjies immediately knew the first receiver Slade was his man and went up to make the tackle.
Dumb Dud Allende held his position opposite Marchant until the last second and then in one of the dumbest decisions of the season turned in to the tackled player….who was well covered by Jantjies…. leaving Marchant unmarked.
Calling Marchant Am’s man is to pretend he was culpable when he clearly wasn’t. Be honest…..Dud lost the test right there, at that point the Boks had all the momentum.
After the fact Mozart pretends something did happen that never happened but only in his imagination. What is weird it is always the case with players he personally dislike. He therefore dream up something weird and then post it on site. What he post is often the case with circusmatnces which only he discovered and then repeated on site for years afterwards.
What Mozart see and what is dealt with by experts is vastly different from analysis done of what happened on the field of play. When what happened for instance in the case of missed tackles by Mostert in tests leading to scoring of 2 tries - one by the Argentinians and one by the AB's was outright nonsense. Mostert is an extreme poor open-field tackler and because of that was dropped from the starting team and put on the bench. The only time he did manage to start in tests afterwards was when De Jager and Du Toit was not available and even in those cases he was in tests replaced by Kwagga or other players.
Mozart used to provide descriptions he called Morzoscopes on what happened in matches and if ever there was a collection of horseshit about incidents in matches - it was his description of what he believes actually happened. For instance in the World Cup final the weird thing is a claim by Mozart that the replacement of De Jager by Mostert was the main reason for the Springboks winning in the final. The fact is Mostert did not make a single trysaving tackle in the final - the tackles he made was so weak that Dave correctly indicated he in fact missed tackles that were completed by players like Malherbe, Etzebeth, Du Toit and Pollard in the five minutes the English was unsuccessfully attacking the tryline.
What is weird is that this type of rubbish is always dreamed up by Mozart in the case of players he dislikes and then presented as facts on site. If the players he dislikes do anything positive in matches those are just ignored by him and when pointed out he finds an excuse that the opposition failed in matches - he would never credit anybody of good performance that counters his prejudiced take on players.
It is in fact worthless that analysts favorably report on what happened in matches and when pointed out and proven he was wrong he would go quiet for a while and when he next opportunity arises the horseshit will be repeated.
It happened too many times to be accidental and in those cases it will always be the same players he attacks - Du Toit, De Jager and De Allende. . .
Blah, blah….so who was supposed to tackle Marchant. Dave thinks it was Am which is clearly nonsense…..who do you think Tokkie….give us a name and puleeeze stop whining.
So Jantjies should have chased after a guy running across field who never got the ball (Smith) while a carrier (Slade) ran straight into his channel. Am should have come 5m inside onto Slade leaving a 3 man overlap on the outside, or a huge gap for Smith to run into on the offload. Sounds legit.
DA tackles Marchant, the move dies. If Marchant did get an offload away to Smith, Am was right there to smother it.
This is so clear cut it's not even funny. I'd even be inclined to say England deliberately targeted DA with this move because they know of this weakness. There used to be a video on Youtube showing how Australia targeted DA on the inside back in 2015 I think. Can't find it, but the man has a known defensive weakness that smart teams can exploit.
IF means wise AFTER the F ACT. If my auntie had balls she would have been my uncle. It ia amazing how Mozart and you can always be wise after the fact if working out what should have happened and did not happen.
If De Allende and Du Toit were as bad in defending as Mostert was proven to be - how come he was dropped to the bench and they were not? However, the players Mozart and you try to discredit is never discredited world wide and respected by real players - even Pollard said De Allende is the best inside center he ever played with and he is selected by the players as the backline player of the year and even more so Du Toit was selected by experts as Player of the Year in 2019. These experts and players have detailed game analysis of every player on the field of play and follow everything done by every player while he played. So I rather believe the experts and people with that type of analysis available to them than top peopple sedt on maligning players they are prejudiced against to start with.
So eat your crow and enjoy it will it last. Just do me favor Mozart has repeated the tripe he wrote at least five times before so lets hope he will not repeat it again.
Mozart
It was repeated by you enough times and every time it was BS.
It was black and white….nobody except Allende was lined up on Marchant. Stop lying.
Mozart
Be honest for a change - did De Allende attempted or missed an actual tackle on Marchant? Was Marchant running at De Allende? Then we have the story made up by you as per normal to try to denigrate De Allende. Miserable to try such junk nonsense to get prejudice sounding reasonable.
Yes he was running straight at the spot Allende was waiting…..and then for completely inexplicable reasons Dud turned inside……that’s exactly what Jean said in the commentary. It’s plain as day. Stop lying, it’s disgusting.
Mozart
Sorry -but another lie has been exposed - Pakie said Marchant was running at an angle - you sad he rana strait line to where De Allende was before he moved away. So here we have a new version again.
By the way you are not exactly impartial when it comes to description of what happened in matches since your prejudice and player hatred makes you see things that happened different from those of anybody else. I frankly think their would have been a reason why De Allende who are a top class defender would move away from a spot. So kerrp it up - we all know your match descriptions are hopelessly prejudiced BS.
Clutching at straws Mike….I never said he ‘ran a straight line’. I said ‘ he was running straight at the spot Dud was standing’. That could be at an angle or perpendicularly down the field….both could be straight at a spot. Once again language has baffled you.
I repeat, whose responsibility was it to tackle Marchant. Dave floated the laughable idea it was Am. Who is your fall guy for Dud Allende, barf it up….or for once on this Board, admit your mistake.
No Mozart
Playing with words is what you try and bring up here - you are still talking KAK. It was the same kind of junk you wrote in the past about De Allende and Du Toit. You were caught lying about similar incidents in the past. If Du Toit or De Allende were within 5 meters from where another player missed a tackle - they were guilty of the miss by the other player. Here is a case where you sat down and claimed for no reason whatsoever De Allende left the spot where he was and where he should in your delirium have stayed and the line break would not haver happened. That while the man was running across the field and not in a straight line.
This kind of after the fact assumptions and dreams are exactly why your assessments are totally useless.
Mike, you should look at these incidents instead of just accusing everyone of lying.
Image 1 below: Jantjies circled green, DA circled turquoise. Slade carrying circled white, Marchant circled red with line drawn along the exact line he is going to run.
Image 2 below:
Slade (white) about to pass. Jantjies (green) going in for the tackle. Marchant's (red) running line still takes him right past DA (turqouise). To suggest that he is Am's (purple) man is ridiculous.
Pakie
Thanks for your photos where the coloring you refer to is bad. I tried to figure out from the two photo's and it was clear that what Mozart claim is his standard BS,
To start off with there was a five versus four overlap in the situation. and the Springboks defensive system malfunctioned. The so-called moving out of position was less than a meter from where De Allende was in the first pic. So of course De Allende is blamed by him as causing the overlap.
The so-called weakness of De Allende in defense is standard BS touted by Mozart and you =- so/ take it for what it is worth - misrepresentation is total garage from both of you. De Allende is regarded as an exceptionally good mid-field defender and the tar5getting him because of poor defense will be laughed of the board if you raise it in responsible rugby discussions. The players know that and that is why they selected De Allende as the top backline player thi s year. Live with it and remain as prejudiced as you are anyway
Image 2 below:
Slade (3, white) about to pass. Jantjies (1, green) going in for the tackle. Marchant's (4, red) running line still takes him right past DA (2, turqouise). To suggest that he is Am's (5, purple) man is ridiculous.
BS as per normal - what about the overlap. on the outside and he fact that should Slade be tackled De Allende had to try and get a turnover at the resultant breakdown - something he does often in matches. Anyway Marchant got the ball by an off-load late pass and ran into the gap between De Allende and AM - nearer to Am than to De Allende - but Marchant also had two further attacking players on his outside with only one defender being to cover the two.
The line you drew as to the line he was running is baloney - how come Am tried to tackle Marchant if he was nearer to De Allende than to AM?
In any way - your take on De Allende's defense is total BS and prejudice.
Mike, were not in kindergarten. All your questions can be answered by an objective review of the video footage. Whether you wish to do that is a decision you have to make for yourself.
I have watched the video evidence a number of times and prejudice against players do not determine what I wrote on site.
The odd lapse does not define a player...all players make errors in matches...funny that some players are constantly singled out by the one faction and other players by the other gang...South African infighting taken to the next level...ons haat vrede...
I have watched the video evidence a number of times
And you still think Am was closer to Marchant than DA? Bwaha.
Ja wat Draad, lekker om so oor en weer kak te praat
If Itoje didn't rip the ball from Am, the 2nd try would not have happened...why not blame Am for the loss? That's where things started to get difficult for the Bokke....
Going trough a particular player's match with a fine comb to pin some blame on him for something he did or didn't do is ridiculous...as is denying it happened too. Players make mistakes all the time...there's no such thing. as a perfect match for any player...who's to replace DdA if he's not good enough? Based on what evidence?
The point is not that Dud is defined by this mistake….there have been many other examples. The point is this was a disastrous blunder, it basically lost the game….yet the Dud groupies insist he had a great game.
Incredibly faced with graphic evidence a 5year old wouldn’t misinterpret….they pretend it was confusing.
To have any scrap of credibility theseDud groupies should admit he was culpable. They can’t and maintain the fiction he had a great game. You don’t have a great game when you have made the biggest defensive mistake of the test.
It’s black and white two players line up on 2 English players….Jantjies did his job….Dud didn’t and not for the first time. And these liars have the gall to claim those that point out the obvious are lying
Of all the attempts to spin a lie in all the years on these Boards this is perhaps the most cynical.
This blunder was manufactured by you and nobody else. That type of idiocy has been part and parcel of your posts and when players like De Allende and Du Toit did well and is recognized worldwide as top players - you carry on as if you are the only real match performance evaluator.
You do not eve have at your disposal the detailed performance record of each player in every test they played that real experts have. You base your evaluation on what you c0onsidered to be the facts and on selective usage of part of the limited stats provided by ESPN added to which your own prejudiced and highly unethical descriptions of what happened.
You selectg some really poor players and then lied when they failed to perform and when your descriptions are challenged and thought to be cleared up you return with the same garbage again after months. If merit has anything to do with what you wrote people may believe part of your findings - but every player you write glorifying them went on for years after they should have been dropped. Your mania about retaining failed players that should have been dropped from the Springbok team because they became under-performers due to aging is legendary.
Your farcical attacks on Erasmus as coach bordered on rugby insanity and total lack of rugby knowledge. You never once criticized the defective failed coaches Meyer and Coetzee and started your attacks based on lies about Erasmus coaching career of the past before he assumed duty.
"The point is not that Dud is defined by this mistake….there have been many other examples. The point is this was a disastrous blunder, it basically lost the game"
The Poms scored 3 tries and we missed a couple of try scoring opportunities, but you want to pin the loss on one error by DdA?...team sports doesn't work like that...you seem to be focusing on the negatives only. Who would you like to replace DdA?
I never once criticized Meyer and Coetzee?
Coetzee has to goForum » Rugby » Coetzee has to go
Hall Of Fame
35321 posts
Sep 25, 2017, 15:39.....thrice. How many more experts and fans have to say this, how many more huge losses have to be endured....before SA Rugby do what any other sports franchise or business would do......FIRE THE INCOMPETENT!
Draad I’m not asking you to agree with me that Dud wastes great ball and is a poor defensive decision maker. I’m not even asking you to say that he had a poor game.
For the record I’m asking you to agree that he was the only player culpable in Quirke’s try. Just that narrow little bit of honesty.
Not wondering Mozart about last summer. The attacks on Du Toit started in 2013 when some of us claimed that Meyer is mad to bring back the retired Matfield to play after his retirement and Du Toit was mentioned as a replacement. Matfield turned out a disaster when he did come back - and you falsely claimed he was a success. In the case of De Allende started in 2014 - when he played for the Springboks the first time and the same narrative was used before and especially in 2015.
In the meantime whenever the two players played well you ignore their performances and claimed that it happened because the opposition made mistakes. When Mostert buggered up open field tackles leading to tries - the narrative was spread that the failed tackles when players basically ran through Mostert were due to - guess who - Du Toit.
That kind of BS has been repeated endlessly by you. But the problem was not Coetzee - it became Erasmus. The fact was not Coetzee - where you found one post mentioning Coetzee in 18 months - but there has been dozens of attacks on Erasmus since his appointment and it was BS 100% of the time. Sure - it did not take long for the clubs coached by Meyer and Coetzee to find out that they were grossly incompetent - but in the 6 years Meyer and Coetzee was around as Springbok coaches - one mention of Coetzee was all you produced.
Sorry Mozart - the fact is you are so prejudiced nobody can take anything serious when it came to you.
.
"For the record I’m asking you to agree that he was the only player culpable in Quirke’s try. Just that narrow little bit of honesty."
He probably is culpable...I'll have to watch it in real time to know for sure...DdA is definitely not the "smartest" 12 we ever had, but he's far from the useless plonker some make him out to be. One lapse in defence doesn't define the match...nor does a few over plenty of matches define a career.
Draad
The comments Mozart make on site has nothing to do with players concerned - but rather comments made by other members about players - especially if they are just coming onto the rugby scene. He would oppose them and for the rest of their playing careers try and find evidence that he was correct all along and the people opposing him are fools.
However, that includes not only rugby players and it is the min reason why he went on the attack against Erasmus - which started the day of his appointment by SARU in 2018 and is continuing. \
But it includes cricket and tennis players as well. There was a recent example where he mentioned an 18 tear-old tennis player by the name of Holger Rune from Denmark as a good prospect - and I commented that the 18 year-old with the best prospects for the future is Carlos Alcaraz. That was enough to set Mozart off and when Alcaraz lost to Andy Murray in a match about two weeks afterwards he wrote a thread under the following heading:-
Hahahaha….I just saw Andy Murray
During the match - which I watched - the commentator said Alcaraz should rather not have played since he was nursing an injury, The story came back three weeks later to bite Mozart when Alcaraz played Murry again and gave him a real tennis lesson. However, you will read Mozart's stories in future how poor Alcaraz is.
Close Draad, but you can do better than ‘probably’…..just tell us the truth. If I wanted to read lies I’d actually read one of Mike’s posts who has even thrown tennis players in the mix to try and save Dud’s blushes.
When guys I rate make mistakes I admit them while still supporting the player….Dud fans are so insecure they can’t even admit these two hyped okies make mistakes.
".just tell us the truth"
I'll have to go look for the footage to be able to tell "the truth"....I really try not to lie ever...especially on social media...I don't have an agenda.
You never admitted any mistakes by players you like - you try and cover up their mistakes if anybody mention it by fake reasons or ignore them. Your other method is to blame other players for the bugger-ups by your favored players.
Draad
I think what Mozart write on sit is aimed more at trying to belittle fellow posters and to prove that they are wrong and he is right. He would pick rugby players supported by Dave and a few other posters and keep on attacking them for years after they became Springboks - but the same applies to cricket and tennis players.
For example he referred to an 18 year-old Danish player called Holger Rune as playing well againsta match against Djokovic. I then said I saw Carlos Alcaraz playing in a few matches and he really is the best young prospect I have seen. That was enough to set Mozart going
Gosh do you mean players like Wynand Olivier, JJ Englebrecht , Jan Stepfontein, Luke Watson, Taute, Jantjies, Hougaard at 9, Coenie Oosthuizen, Marcel Coetzee, the Deysel twins, Deysel, Marcel van der Merwe, the Duds, Kolisi, Papier, Goosen, Swiel, Ruhan Nel, Schickerling, Waylon Murray, Jaco Kriel, Jessie Kriel, Combrink, EW Viljoen, Francois Venter, Jamba Ulengo, Johan Sadie, Quince Roux?
Thirty failures and with only a little effort I could produce 60.
And according to you I only don’t rate those serial failures because you or Dave have told us they are world beaters? Thirty hyped players you both bought into….and only the Duds and Kolisi have played for the Boks regularly. Well not so regularly Dud Toit is a chronic injury machine.
I simply deconstruct the hype that is South African rugby commentary. By accident that puts me on the opposite side of you and Dave who are always deeply invested in any hyped player. Correlation doesn’t imply causation.
But the list of your failures is actually incredible. I don’t think one could get so many players wrong if one actually tried,
