Willie le Roux 8.5. The brains behind most of the attack
Mapimpi 7.5 - Lots of pace. Needs to be given more space on the outside
Am. 7.5- Good all-around game. Little to no mistakes
CartHuizen 6.5- extremely strong in the midfield on defence.
Dyantyi 8.5 - Everything he did was good. Combines well with Willie Leroux, excellent chaser of the high ball- and is one step ahead in attacking movements.
Pollard 5. - Pole kicking hopeless. Territory kicking hopeless. The rest was average.
Faf 7. - First half poor, but got stronger as the game progressed.
Malherbe 5.0- average.
Marx 7 - Some good turnovers, otherwise average
Beast 8- excellent
Etzebeth 8.5.
Stephanie 7.
Louw 5 .Slouw, was nowhere.
Kolisi 7. Played well.
Whiteley 4- Poor. Question marks again if he can step up at test level
..…………………
Kitshoff 6.5.-
Van Staden 4. One good turnover- but seemed like a brainless liability at times.
Willemse 2- Where is Jantjies? Being skilful does not mean being a test decision maker. Perhaps would have been better to start at 15 with less decision making responsibility.
Tank 5.5- Did little, but had limited time on the field
Bongi 6.- Looked solid in the little time he was on
Willie is as he has been since Meyer, a connector. A real playmaker. Like how Dagg can be a second 10 for some interesting setups. Covers the deficiencies of our centres. Outside backs and half backs were good. I missed a large portion of the first half, but what I did see from Faf was very good. Allowed the Boks to play fast, quick thinking. I liked what I saw.
Dyanti has the brain Mvovo never had. He has a sense of what is going on around him.
Etzabeth played brilliantly after being out for so long but of course was bettered by Retallick who had a brilliant game and scored a 10 out of 10 according to Rugby 365. Beeno and Clevermike (always going on about the tight 5) please take note.
10/10 is impossible, but yes he did play very well.
Augenoffner, Rugby 365 assessment:
"5. Brodie Retallick – 10
Brodie Retallick was the man of the match. The industrious lock was everywhere. Had his way with the Australian lineout, won a handful of turnovers and scored a brilliant try to boot after selling a big dummy. Excellent comeback performance after an 11-month international absence."
JW, always fact-based
Lets clear up the Mozart BS before it cause further damage to the man’s idiocy:-
Willie le Roux = 8.5
Mapimpi = 7.5.
Am. = 7.
Esterhuizen = 5.5.
Dyantyi = 7.5.
Pollard = 5.5.
Faf = 6.5
Malherbe = 7.
Marx = 8.
Beast = 7.
Etzebeth = 8.5.
Du Toit = 8
Louw = 4.5.
Kolisi = 6.
Whiteley = 5.5.
..…………………
Kitshoff = 6.5.
Van Staden = 5.5
So lets see where the BS needs to be corrected:-
Scoring of tries is not a norm Mozart applies n layer ratings. Am get a better rating than the two wings – based on what? His defense was good enough – but his ball carries was below par and I give him an extra point for scoring that try..
Esterhuizen was not effective in attacking play and had tackling problems
Pollard’s goalkicking was seriously defective
De Klerk had a few passes that went nowhere
Whiteley was the best of the loosies - not very effective
Kolisi - not much to write home about.
Louw was on vaction in Durban and he did as near as possible to nothing. He allowed two players through to score tries
Du Toit made 18 tackles = not missing a single one and had to do the work of the loosies as well
Malherbe and Beast did much the same work and why Malherbe who made moré tackles than Beast did and made one pass that preceded a try – should get a point less than Beast only Mozart would know.
He penalized Marx for line-out problems – but forget about the 6 possession turnmovers he made.
Van Staden and the others had too short playing time to be rated – but in that short time he made a crucial possession turnover.
Duplication
Ratings based on prejudice. They were already written before the game.
If a recording of the game surfaces online, let me know please.
@Pakie
There a site you can download the game from https://www.sport-video.org.ua/rugby.html .
Eben was immense for a bloke who's not played for 6+ months
EDIT. The Bok game hasn't been uploaded yet.
Listen dead head = I gave reasons for the ratings - but you apparently cannot read. Those who made serious ,mistakes or had otherwise satisfactory performances made less points than Mozart gave them.
Lets go to Louw as an example. Louw was in a similar position that Du Toit was in a few years ago when the Poms scored two tries.amd Mozart wrote full books about those two tries Not a word about Louw's two bugger-ups. That is what one calls prejudice. But then- there is no more a prejudiced person on site than you.
Like other players Meyer's coaching had a serious negative impact on what Le Roux could do. Le Roux got his playmaking and ball handling skills from his tim e at the Cheetahs. The year with the Sharks did not help either. Initially Le Roux did very well - but he gradually deteriorated in performance. This was largely due to the fact that he could not carry balls effectively without having supporting players. This was caused in the main by Meyer's non-existent game plan - backline players had no role iro attacking play and that was a negative insofar as Meyer was concerned.
By the way - even though there still are deficiencies - the performance today was ten times better than the BS over-the-hills Meyer's team did in 2015
Thanks Xavi, will keep an eye on the site.
It's a game worth watching Pakie, it had some tension as the Argies had a very fluid attack & when the score started to even out it was not a given the Boks would win. Plus, interesting to see the influence of the new coach & the performance of new players. Enjoy.
Thanks, JW.
Back to Meyer. What next? Morné and Jake?
I think Alberts would have made the world of difference so don't forget him
Government freeloading? He told me he was an internationally acclaimed corporate mastermind.
And all Faf did was throw a few pass that went nowhere(Seriously!!!???).
And Esterhuizen tackled poorly(this is my favourite because DomLinda clearly set the defensive bar very high...the open gate that he is ).
OK
BSting Mozart - have a look at the Sanchez and Matera tries and see where Louw was and what he did,
Plum
I did look at the stats when referring to the Esterhuizen stats when making that remark about tackling, It originally 7 tackles made - 2 missed - but it now is 9 made 1 missed - so I withdraw my comments in that regard,
Here are the Rugby 365 Player ratings, a somewhat neutral assessment. Pollard gets hammered, Faf does well & IMO he played a decent game. Loosies weren't that good but Louw got 6 out of 10. PSDT did well with his defence. Midfield were ok but wings were very good. Eztebeth was huge for being injured for so long.
Rugby 365 Rating:
Warren Fortune rates the South African players!
15 Willie le Roux:
A constant threat on attack and a better flyhalf than Handre Pollard. His pin-point kick for Aphiwe Dyantyi’s first try was outstanding.
8/10
14 Makazole Mapimpi:
He made great use of the space he was given out wide and he scored two tries in the win. He notched up more running metres than anyone else in his team.
8/10
13 Lukhanyo Am:
He defended well and showed his strength in the tackle, especially for his try. However, he is just a bit predictable in his channel on attack.
6/10
12 André Esterhuizen:
He was tasked with absorbing as much defenders as possible when he crashed the ball up and he felt comfortable with his Sharks teammate outside him.
6.5/10
11 Aphiwe Dyantyi:
His finishing was impeccable, and he just showed some great awareness for the play around him. Another two tries for the speedster as well.
8.5/10
10 Handré Pollard:
He has a very poor game. He looked predictable with ball in hand and his kicking game was not up to standard. His distribution was shocking at times.
4/10
9 Faf de Klerk:
He improved tremendously as the game went on. He kept Argentina’s defence guessing and he had a hand in two of his team’s tries and he scored one himself.
8/10
8 Warren Whiteley:
It was a bit of a mix bag from the No.8. He could have helped a bit more at the breakdowns, but his defence was good.
5/10
7 Siyamthanda Kolisi (captain):
He seemed to go missing for large periods. However, he was aggressive on defence and he got his team over the gain line with some nice carries.
6/10
6 Francois Louw:
He looked a bit lethargic on the field, but he was a threat at the breakdowns and he did his part on defence.
6/10
5 Pieter-Steph du Toit:
An absolute monster on defence. He made more tackles than anyone else on the field and never missed one.
7.5/10
4 Eben Etzebeth:
It was his first game back from a long injury lay-off and he was immense in open play. He carried the ball more than anyone else in his team and he made some serious metres.
9/10
3 Frans Malherbe:
He was strong in the scrums, but we didn’t see too much of him in open play.
6/10
2 Malcolm Marx:
He was outstanding at the breakdowns where he won several turnovers. However, his line-out throwing was shocking on a few occasions in the strike zone.
7/10
1 Tendai Mtawarira:
He was a Beast in the scrums and showed incredible power in the tackle.
7/10
Replacements:
16 Bongi Mbonambi (On for Malcolm Marx, 65th min)
Not enough time to be rated.
17 Steven Kitshoff (On for Tendai Mtawarira, 52nd min)
He had some good carries and he gave his pack a bit of power up front.
6/10
18 Thomas du Toit (On for Frans Malherbe, 58th min)
He brought some great energy up front. He put in a few good tackles and won a turnover.
6/10
19 Marvin Orie
Not used.
20 Marco van Staden (On for Francios Louw, 60th min)
It was a good cameo from the new cap and he ended the match with a nice turnover.
5/10
21 Embrose Papier (On for Aphiwe Dyantyi, 74th min)
Not enough time to be rated.
22 Lionel Mapoe (On for Lukhanyo Am, 73rd min)
Not enough time to be rated.
23 Damian Willemse (On for Andre Esterhuizen, 63rd min)
He didn’t get much opportunity to show what he can do.
5/10
@rugby365com
Mozart
Why were you fired so frequently from jobs? Can tell you why = because you were a liar and a freeloader without any HR ability,
I think Fortune went to get a beer when Willemse was playing but most of his other ratings seem ok. I would have given the loosies a 5 or 6 for example and this is what he did.
Mozart
You know as much about my career and life as I do of yours, You make nasty remarks about me and I responded now to deal with your normal BS. Live with it.
Listen Dimness
I will withdraw my comment when you withdr5aw yours about Du Toit in the English test. Louw was just about 2 meters outside of Sanchez when he broke past him/. And you B about the the Matera try was clear as well.
By the way false asshole - Louw was supposed according to you to be the great ball carrier and defender as the loosie in the squad. He did neither and was most of the game AWOL. Go to ESPN and quote us his stats BSter.
I'm doing a full scale writeup of the game and some far Pollard has been excellent. Louw was also very good. Interesting how Louw brought down Argie 15 after Faf box kick. He made a great clean tackle which allowed Marx over the ball. The commentators praised Kolisi. During the replay, they praised Kolisi again. Exclaiming how he did a great job in allowing Marx to make a break for the ball. Twice? It's this kind of dishonesty that really makes me sick. Louw functioned well within his pods. As said, I still have some way to go, but so far, so good. The Boks have been very organised, which is nice to see.
This is where Clever Mike's knowledge of the game reveals itself: If a player didn't have a lot of numbers on the stats sheet, they went AWOL. How can you tell what his role was off the ball? In one of the first movements of the game Faf goes short-flat left to a POD. S5 is the head and gets the ball, S6 comes up flat and straight. This movement roped in three Puma forwards and allowed S10 to come around the back of the POD with space and options. Stats can't track movement off the ball and therefore can't help you build an understanding of what the players are doing and who was supporting them. Movement off the ball is a very important aspect of attacking rugby as that's where your deception comes from. Yet Clever Mike will tell you these players go AWOL. Dishonest or ignorant. You tell me Clever Mike.
Lol Mike
Oh, you rated Esterhuizen based on the stats, which have now changed.
Ok.
I watched the game.
In future - Use the stats as supplemental tools. Use your first and second full watch throughs of the game as your main data.
Just an idea.
