FO liar
Actually, Whitely wasn't bad. I'm nearly finished my sweep of the second half. So far, Whitely grew more into the game. The Boks lacked nothing for grunt. Even Kolisi had his moments. Though he was invisible most of the game. Coetzee can't offer what Louw or Whitely offer. I remember how he was an acclaimed defender and carrier in 2012, but was shown up badly. He had a chance to replace Alberts in 2014, blew it. Coetzee would be more involved than Kolisi, but he is no power carrier.
Dave
You must be careful here - we have complete habitual liars on site. Do you remember the morzoscope evaluations of 2013 - complete falsification on what happened in games.. That nonsense was stopped for a while - but is now back in full force and we have to fight like hell to get honest assessments.
You just have to go to what was written about Louw's contribution in the test last week to realize it were 90% pure lies and 10% slanted BS. The three worst BSters remain the same and fact is they are trying to subdue real criticism on site,
Louw was substandard last Saturday - they make him out to be top class with only Etzebeth, Marx and Beast better than him. That is the type of thing they call analysis - but one can really call systematic lies from habitual liars.
BS alert - no Dave is not the habitual liar you are. He has his viewpoints on issues and sometimes I differ from him.- but he is not a low life. Must be sorry he is back - he will expose you for what you really are.
SA rugby is anti rugby, it is uncouth.
It relies on basic sequences like line outs. Yet the hooker botched a large number of opportunities from line outs.
A player who does not perform at basic sequences in a basic gameplan can not be average. He is below average.
No Trad, the only thing below average is your IQ, and that's below retard average. The STUPID hurts!!!!
High enough though to see the socalled quota policy tale.
Nope, low enough to think it's a good thing. You can't fix STUPID...Dom Doos.
PS, I use profanity less than most, but in your case I like it more than regular...arsehole!!!
Actually I am very sorry for you - to be so prejudiced to the extent that you made yourself a fool about your rating of rugby players must be a terrible situation to be in. That is when you face reality and be told what thy really are - whether good or bad - you regard it as lies.
Unfortunately there are no lies in your long list - only the truth - but because you do not like the truth about some players you turned it into make-believe lies.
As an example fact is you would not accept that Fransie is a failure as a rugby center and De Allende wiped the floor with him so your only recourse is to say I lied. The same applies to Morne Steyn where there is all the effort to get out of the tight spot you always are in insofar as Morne's performances since 2012 are concerned. I liked the way especially in the 2013 AB test how he slapped Barrett on his back wishing him well on his way to score the try - one could really not call that a tackle attempt but ESPN did record it as a missed tackle/
I can answer every so-called lie you made up - but most of those related to where foolish and made-up rubbish totally unrelated to what actually happened are spouted on site by prejudiced fools far away from what actually happened. In your view I lied because I differ from the junk postings/make-believe stories posted on site.
My problem is I do not suffer fools gladly and I am afraid the disgusting Mozart caught you in a net and make you support the crazy ideas he comes up with. You should rather think before you write prejudiced junk on site which proves nothing and you will always be discredited on site.
Then we have the Kiewiet Matfield is concerned you apparently have a problem in reading - I never wrote about the English test in 2012 insofar as he is concerned. The 2012 case referred to Steenkamp. Matfield was carded in the 2014 test and the Springboks won despite his determined effort to lose the test - same as the case was in the AB tests in 2014. Insofar as Steenkamp is concerned the failing scrums were in virtually all tests - but disastrously poor against the Pumas.
Go and check the rest of your facts before you call it lies
Clever Mike. You are losing it. You are straining desperately. You keep flitting between crying and stamping your feet. Give up. I implore you. You've made more errors in this "debate" than usual. That's the clearest sign that you are done.
I am not saying anything bar that the two of you are the most stupid rugby idiots imaginable and your slanted prejudiced BS leads to rubbish postings about lies. Fact is the real fools are the two of you. Whenever your prejudiced rubbish are countered you suddenly stamp it as lies. As I said before I do not suffer fools like especially the despicable Mozart gladly and you are very close to that.
I am not saying anything bar that the two of you are the most stupid rugby idiots imaginable and your slanted prejudiced BS leads to rubbish postings about lies. Fact is the real fools are the two of you. Whenever your prejudiced rubbish are countered you suddenly stamp it as lies. As I said before I do not suffer fools like especially the despicable Mozart gladly and you are very close to that.
"Whenever countered"
Don't get ahead of yourself. I think you are punch drunk!
You'll have the old coot in tears (again). Never mind Lügnerin...
Mozart if I were you, and the two other Idiot Speakers In would be heartily ashamed of my conduct in this case. Let me start off with Pakie claiming Louw made 9 tackles and missed 1one and said ESPN indicated as such. Here are the stats - see for yourself.
Louw 0/0 0 0/5/6 12 0 0 0 0 7/2 0/0 1 0/0The stats were 7 tackles made 2 missed all along.
Secondly Louw did not even attempt a tackle on Sanchez and Matera and that would not have counted as missed tackles anyway.
Here is your quote:-
"No comparison between the incidents.....for one thing Sanchez never threw a dummy, for another thing there was no question who should have tackled Youngs and for another it happened twice in the same game...case closed."
"The Louw incident disposed of....a near unanimous view the try was not his fault. Trust Muck to reference this old incident and pretend he proved something....whereas he was shot down."
Are you not ashamed about lying like that, Any observer would tell you exactly the same as I did, You people are shameless about your distortions on site and that is a fact. A dummy story is BS anyway, The position Louw was on the same side of where Du Toit was and he was just about a meter closer to the breakdown point. The fact was that it left less space for Sanchez to run though than Youngs had - yet they ran past Louw without him even attempting a tackle.
Let my quote my real remark about what happened in that case insofar as you three are concerned:-
"I share your view in that regard - but Mozart and his fellow-BSters do not. They use it for attacks on players and I was just giving them some of their own medicine in this case,
If Du Toit was in the same position as Louw was - the howls of Mozart and his supporters on site would be heard in Moscow - so loud it would be. They have their pet hates and that is always reflected on this site. That is why I object constantly to their BS,"
As to the relevant incident - Pakie lied about the stats and both AO and you lied about what really happened and the total similarity between the two incidents of Du Toit and Louw in the respective tests, Fact is the near unanimous opinion you refer to was the opinion of you three liars.
.
Mozart if I were you, and the two other Idiot Speakers In would be heartily ashamed of my conduct in this case. Let me start off with Pakie claiming Louw made 9 tackles and missed 1one and said ESPN indicated as such. Here are the stats - see for yourself.
Louw 0/0 0 0/5/6 12 0 0 0 0 7/2 0/0 1 0/0The stats were 7 tackles made 2 missed all along.
Secondly Louw did not even attempt a tackle on Sanchez and Matera and that would not have counted as missed tackles anyway.
Here is your quote:-
"No comparison between the incidents.....for one thing Sanchez never threw a dummy, for another thing there was no question who should have tackled Youngs and for another it happened twice in the same game...case closed."
"The Louw incident disposed of....a near unanimous view the try was not his fault. Trust Muck to reference this old incident and pretend he proved something....whereas he was shot down."
Are you not ashamed about lying like that, Any observer would tell you exactly the same as I did, You people are shameless about your distortions on site and that is a fact. A dummy story is BS anyway, The position Louw was on the same side of where Du Toit was and he was just about a meter closer to the breakdown point. The fact was that it left less space for Sanchez to run though than Youngs had - yet they ran past Louw without him even attempting a tackle.
Let my quote my real remark about what happened in that case insofar as you three are concerned:-
"I share your view in that regard - but Mozart and his fellow-BSters do not. They use it for attacks on players and I was just giving them some of their own medicine in this case,
If Du Toit was in the same position as Louw was - the howls of Mozart and his supporters on site would be heard in Moscow - so loud it would be. They have their pet hates and that is always reflected on this site. That is why I object constantly to their BS,"
As to the relevant incident - Pakie lied about the stats and both AO and you lied about what really happened and the total similarity between the two incidents of Du Toit and Louw in the respective tests, Fact is the near unanimous opinion you refer to was the opinion of you three liars.
Let me start off with Pakie claiming Louw made 9 tackles and missed 1one and said ESPN indicated as such.
No, you are confusing me talking about Esterhuizen's tackle stats with that of Louw, as you yourself admit in this very thread:
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,
So yet again, Mike has accused Pakie of lying when in fact Mike is merely confused.
And in between all this tediousness Draad appears for a little cameo altercation with Trad The fun never ends here.
No Mozart
You are distorting the situation totally as per normal. Du Toit was wider out guarding the potential next recipient - 2 tp 3 meters wider than Louw was and Youngs broke through next to the maul/
You can keep on waffling - fact is there was ZERO difference between the incidents under discussion, If Du Toit instead of Louw was on the field we will read about it 5 years from now.
Just as an aside - the way you blame Du Toit for the piss-poor tackle attempt on Sanchez by Mostert is typical. Kept quiet about the missed tackle and screamed BS for the rest.
Du Toit was wider out guarding the potential next recipient
Bollocks as ever. Video is here, time stamps below. Make up your own minds, pundits, I'm not getting involved in another discussion about this.
Dummy 1 (replays start at 8:28 of the video):
Du Toit is actually moving inside towards the ruck to tackle Youngs, but then buys the dummy and goes for what appears to be an intercept of the dummy pass.
Dummy 2 (replay at 12:34 of the video):
Du Toit is watching Youngs all the way, even stops with clear intent to go for the tackle, but then shifts to the outside the moment Youngs fakes the pass - he completely buys the dummy.
Louw/Sanchez (Video here, replay 2:27):
Bok defense is stretched and outnumbered. If Louw stayed narrow to cover Sanchez, that leaves a 5m+ gap for the guy next to Sanchez to run through and score. Butch James' description at the time is all that needs to be said: "Plenty of space for them, if it wasn't him (Sanchez), it was one of his outside
backs who were going to stroll over to get the Argentinian's first try."
Steph getting beaten like that occurs in almost every test. This man is too clumsy to rush out of the line, and makes very passive reads. He'll lock on and nothing is going to change that call. One of the key players to expose to get through the Bok defence, once you started beating those tackles the Bok defence looks much less secure. The team can be out manoeuvred, moved around and when that happens, they look helpless. In this regard, the Boks are the most vulnerable tier 1 nation.
That is the way for the three Idiot Speakers on site. Idiot Speakers they are - Idiot Speakers they will always remain. LMAO
Look at the pics again and see where you were talking KAK - LMAO
The liar still does not get it. Lets quote him clearly:-
"No comparison between the incidents.....for one thing Sanchez never threw a dummy, for another thing there was no question who should have tackled Youngs and for another it happened twice in the same game...case closed."
"Let me state again for the record. Louw was lined up on the left pole.....Sanchez outside the right pole. Louw's concern was the overlap developing to his left. As the ball came out he was moving left."
Both were lies and clearly so. The Pakie idiotic photos proved one thing - a total void of players om front of Louw against whom he is "defending",
Do you constantly have to make a total fool and liar of yourself? If Du Toit was anywhere near the situation or in a totally ridiculous position where Louw was we would never have heard the end of the story from you, That is why your comments on site are always farcical and always total BS.
The liar still does not get it. Lets quote him clearly:-
"No comparison between the incidents.....for one thing Sanchez never threw a dummy, for another thing there was no question who should have tackled Youngs and for another it happened twice in the same game...case closed."
"Let me state again for the record. Louw was lined up on the left pole.....Sanchez outside the right pole. Louw's concern was the overlap developing to his left. As the ball came out he was moving left."
Both were lies and clearly so. The Pakie idiotic photos proved one thing - a total void of players om front of Louw against whom he is "defending",
Do you constantly have to make a total fool and liar of yourself? If Du Toit was anywhere near the situation or in a totally ridiculous position where Louw was we would never have heard the end of the story from you, That is why your comments on site are always farcical and always total BS.
As to Pakie - we were discussing Louw and he came up with tackle statistics on Esterhuizen - another clown on site as part of Rugby Liars incorporated,
Because he moved out to cover what? He was covering nobody - Idiot,
Duplication
