I'm not sure, Mike ... but I will check and revert as soon as possible.
Pro9,905 posts
27 Jul 2016, 08:25
#41
27 Jul 2016, 08:25#41
Bok Barometer after the Quarters
Started by Mozart58 REPLIES1,473 VIEWS· 24 Jul 2016, 15:54
Pro9,905 posts
27 Jul 2016, 09:01
#42
27 Jul 2016, 09:01#42
Well Mozart ... if all it takes to make a good lock is to be a tall heavy man then why not simply stay with the useless Lood?
Snyman is a good lock and so is Willemse but they have nothing on Mostert when it comes to work rate.
"The Boks is a different ball game where energy should be a given and any of my optional players should be effective within the system.
Assuming that's right, I prefer the extra 8 kgs and two inches from a Snyman"
Mostert contributes as much as they do, if not more physically and is easily as much as 50% more active than either of them.
He plays the full 80, giving it his all, while your preferred options tends to rest a spell during the match, by being inactive. I'd say that qualifies as "disappearing" ... wouldn't you?
Mostert's fitness levels are off the charts ... like that of a loosie ... and having him produce such an energetic display at lock, match after match, benefits any team he plays for.
It is not "a given" that they would up their work rate at test level. They have their style of play and so does Mostert ... it's not going to change ... at any level.
I would much prefer to see my lock all match long than to get snippets of him from time to time.
Besides that ... playing Du Toit at 7 would in any case constitute a powerful ball carrier on the blindside (a position he's comfortable with) and with an on form Vermeulen at 8 we'd have none of the issues your concerned about.
Snyman is a good lock and so is Willemse but they have nothing on Mostert when it comes to work rate.
"The Boks is a different ball game where energy should be a given and any of my optional players should be effective within the system.
Assuming that's right, I prefer the extra 8 kgs and two inches from a Snyman"
A
Mostert contributes as much as they do, if not more physically and is easily as much as 50% more active than either of them.
He plays the full 80, giving it his all, while your preferred options tends to rest a spell during the match, by being inactive. I'd say that qualifies as "disappearing" ... wouldn't you?
Mostert's fitness levels are off the charts ... like that of a loosie ... and having him produce such an energetic display at lock, match after match, benefits any team he plays for.
It is not "a given" that they would up their work rate at test level. They have their style of play and so does Mostert ... it's not going to change ... at any level.
I would much prefer to see my lock all match long than to get snippets of him from time to time.
Besides that ... playing Du Toit at 7 would in any case constitute a powerful ball carrier on the blindside (a position he's comfortable with) and with an on form Vermeulen at 8 we'd have none of the issues your concerned about.
Captain21,007 posts
27 Jul 2016, 10:12
#43
27 Jul 2016, 10:12#43
@Moz
So are you saying that some players don't give everything in their S18 performances? Did Eben and Steph not give a 100% this weekend?
I think that most of them obviously empty the tank but that some of them are just faster and smarter. Thus there efforts are more noticeable. Mostert is a much smarter player than we give him Credit for.
Rewatched the rugby show yesterday. The entire panel plus the ex Boks who phoned in rate Marx as the starting Bok hooker. You go boy!!!
Coach57,555 posts
27 Jul 2016, 12:47
#44
27 Jul 2016, 12:47#44
plum
Mozart is addicted to the idea that players do not show their real value when playing on lower level and then suddenly in tests play a top class game. He has no real proof that it happens that way - it is just an argument to keep selecting low performance rate players on reputation - and not to select players based on performance.
That has been an old argument on his side - but is as shallow as Meyer's argument not to select Lions players have been.
I also like some players like Mostert – but am worried not about the activity of him as a tight 5 player, but about his physicality in Tight 5 situations. I do not think Mostert is a better lock than Etzebeth and Du Toit are and do not have a problem with their selection per se – but as locks, not as loosies, where a different skill set is required.
As to Marx – he should have been starting for the Springboks. He is a class act and is physically a very strong hooker – which adds value to the front row.
Coach57,555 posts
27 Jul 2016, 12:47
#45
27 Jul 2016, 12:47#45
Duplication .
Captain49,914 posts
27 Jul 2016, 15:00
#46
27 Jul 2016, 15:00#46
Not in the knockouts Plum....those are like mini test matches. But I guarantee you that even young players like the du Preez twins cruise in some matches. That means in effect players who play closer to their max show up better over the whole S15 season.
As for the theory that locks are locks....tell that to Itoje who is shorter than Juan Smith and the same weight.
You shape combinations around your talent and the nature of the opposition. If you have a mega talent like Matfield you structure around him.....against NZ or England that meant a power loosie like Alberts. Against Oz this wasn't needed.
As for the theory that locks are locks....tell that to Itoje who is shorter than Juan Smith and the same weight.
You shape combinations around your talent and the nature of the opposition. If you have a mega talent like Matfield you structure around him.....against NZ or England that meant a power loosie like Alberts. Against Oz this wasn't needed.
Coach57,555 posts
27 Jul 2016, 18:06
#47
27 Jul 2016, 18:06#47
What a joke - Matfield never was a mega-talent - he was good in line-outs and for the rest not a lock at all. Structuring anything around him caused a disgrace of massive proportions for the Springboks of Meyer. You shape combinations based on the ability of a player to play in the position he is to be selected. To select a loosie incapable of performing the basic function of a loosie because you have an incapable lock is sheer lunacy. You end up with two ineffective players in a team.
Captain21,007 posts
27 Jul 2016, 18:23
#48
27 Jul 2016, 18:23#48
Mike think you're being a tad unfair there brother. Matfield was, to me anyway, one of the best locks we've ever had. Still he should never have gone to WC. You guys are still lumping both those issues into same category.
Coach57,555 posts
27 Jul 2016, 19:22
#49
27 Jul 2016, 19:22#49
plum - maybe I was too harsh on Matfield. The problem was that he ruined his massive reputation as a top class player by coming back from retirement in 2014. He was a good lock in 2007 - but a poor lock in 2014.
Captain49,914 posts
27 Jul 2016, 21:05
#50
27 Jul 2016, 21:05#50
Correction....he was a great lock in 2007. He was still a very good lock in 2015.
Coach57,555 posts
27 Jul 2016, 21:07
#51
27 Jul 2016, 21:07#51
He was not a good enough lock n 2015 - stop dreaming.
Captain49,914 posts
27 Jul 2016, 21:22
#52
27 Jul 2016, 21:22#52
MOM in the bronze winning match....schplotttttt.
Captain30,741 posts
28 Jul 2016, 13:33
#53
28 Jul 2016, 13:33#53
On form the best side would be:
15. Kriel 14. Ulengo 13. Janse v/Rensburg 12. de Allende 11. Combrink 10. Jantjies 9. Faf 1. Kitshoff 2. Marx 3. Koch 4. Etzebeth 5. PSDT 7. Kriel 7. Jacques du Plessis 8. Whiteley
16. Bismark 17. Nyakane 18. Marcel 19. Willemse 20. Notshe 21. Groom 22. Lambie 23. Willie
I prefer Kriel at 13, but Willie is in such crap form and we cant leave Janse v/Rensburg out, so I'd move Kriel to 15 until Willie rediscovers his form.
Close call on Ulengo, Ismiel and Sergeal Petersen for the 1 wing.....add Skosan
Malherbe is injured, Koch is in great form
Captain30,741 posts
28 Jul 2016, 13:35
#54
28 Jul 2016, 13:35#54
Matfield was not by any stretch the MOM in that 3rd place WC match.....that was a token award for his last game.....Matfield was a liability in every game he played after his return
The real MOM of that 3rd place game was by some distance Malherbe
Captain49,914 posts
28 Jul 2016, 17:12
#55
28 Jul 2016, 17:12#55
Sixteen tackles, one missed....23 metres in 5 runs.....dominating presence in the lineouts. Nope he was the MOM alright. The only challengers were Etzebeth and Louw.
Victor was terrific in 2014. In 2015 he had a great early S15 campaign, but injuries finally impacted him in his 38th year. When fit his great rugby acumen still guaranteed solid contributions.
In any country other than atomically small minded South Africa, with its jealousy of the tall poppy.....he would have been lionized in his final year.
Victor was terrific in 2014. In 2015 he had a great early S15 campaign, but injuries finally impacted him in his 38th year. When fit his great rugby acumen still guaranteed solid contributions.
In any country other than atomically small minded South Africa, with its jealousy of the tall poppy.....he would have been lionized in his final year.
Coach57,555 posts
29 Jul 2016, 01:00
#56
29 Jul 2016, 01:00#56
Mozart in any real rugby top country Matfield would not have been in the squad. His selection by Meyer was a travesty - all other experts think he should not have been - it ultimately contributed to Meyer's end as coach.
Captain49,914 posts
29 Jul 2016, 04:19
#57
29 Jul 2016, 04:19#57
Read and learn, here are the RWC squad caps. Our side wasn't too experienced....it had too many non competitive players.
squads:
1. New Zealand 1,484 caps
2. South Africa 1,297
3. Georgia 1,253
4. Australia 1,243
5. Italy 1,153
6. Romania 1,151
7. Ireland 1,024
8. Wales 1,013
9. Japan 984
10. France 979
11. Scotland 901
12. Argentina 845
13. Uruguay 833
14. England 761
15. Canada 673
16. Fiji 592
17. USA 552
18. Namibia 512
19. Tonga 501
20. Samoa 483
Coach57,555 posts
29 Jul 2016, 07:19
#58
29 Jul 2016, 07:19#58
And the most experienced team the Springboks ever fielded lost against JAPAN, because most of the experienced players were not competitive.
Captain49,914 posts
29 Jul 2016, 15:54
#59
29 Jul 2016, 15:54#59
Nope.
— END OF THREAD —
