Boklogic

Before you take on the responsibility of talking me through the meaning of life, could you just point out where I got it wrong regarding Frans at 12 and Hougaard at 9........given the following:

Bok Barometer for week three:
15. Louis Ludik (Sharks) 14. JP Pietersen (Sharks) 13. Jean de Villiers (Stormers) 12. Francois Steyn (Sharks) 11. Bjorn Basson (Bulls) 10. Pat Lambie (Sharks) 9. Francois Hougaard (Bulls) 8. Duane Vermeulen (Stormers) 7. Jean Deysel (Sharks) 6. Arno Botha (Bulls) 5. Andries Bekker (Stormers) 4. Anton Bresler (Sharks) 3. Werner Kruger (Bulls) 2. Chiliboy Ralepelle (Bulls) 1. Tendai Mtwarira (Sharks).

And while you are at it given your rugby authority - I dont seem to see Jordaan at 13 - could you explain why?

...but what you do see is a certain JDV at 13 who you say is past it and was ineffective again.

Dont for 1 second think that I give a shit what some tosser has put up as a Bok barometer. The true bok barometer for WEEK 3 would have featured that Cheetahs flanker. Hougaard played half a game and was worse than Sarel in a losing Cheetahs effort. In fact, Vermaak was better. Pietersen was never better than Rhule who tried his heart out in a losing effort, Frans Steyn was very ineffective. Morne Steyn was better than Lambie by a long way, Kanko was better at 8 than Duane.

So please, if the barometer is going to be done week on week, lets have a true reflection of that single week.

The Bok Barometer is some individuals take on it I guess and we all have different opinions. This oke sounds like he is choosing his favourites because one of the Sharks best backs of the week was Jordaan (they were all kak but he was slightly better) but he is like the only one not to be selected...Ha ha cant believe u waste time posting this. Not many will agree with that I can promise you.

 Actually wrong Stringbean, the Bok Barometer is compiled by 5 rugby writers and exposes your rugby ignorance. 

Which Cheetahs flanker would that be given Arno Botha and Deysel were both voted as MOM of their respective games.

Pretorious was pathetic for the Cheetahs as his service was as insult and well documented in the write ups. Rhule did absolutely nothing in week 3, he was better in his first outing.

Jordaan did absolutely nothing as did all the 13's.  Did Kankowski play?

Stringbean and you want us to believe you know your rugby.......you are a joke man. In future please refrain from pointing fingers at my selections, for you are not worthy. 

It is very difficult for SA backline players to function properly in attacking mode at all.   In the past two games for the Sharks Francois Steyn had a brain inplosion and refused to pass balls to players outside of him.   A few times he did so by accident - that is why Jordaan got three balls from him and Ludick 2 in the Sharks - Stormers game and less so in the Cheetahs game.

In the case of the Stormers the answer is that Jantjies cannot play properly at flyhalf - it happened in both games.  He stood too deep in the pocket - runs a few steps towards the inside center and then passed the ball to him.  The poor reipient was in deep shit and can do nothing with the opposing team defenders on top of him.  Jantjies is clueless and when the Stormers had ample players outside with a lesser number of defenders - he merely kicked the ball away - making touch 15 meters over the gain line.

There is no way that with that kind of performance by players at 10 and 12 any backline can function properly and I am very sorry to see our wings and 13's be starved of balls while the inside players bugger up  any potential backline attack.   The only way they get their hands on balls is if they go and look for it themselves - otherwise they actually are dummies standing around for decorative and defence purposes only.

I call what happened in the past two games sabotaging of backline play and hope it is stopped sooner rather than later.

Insofar as the bokbarometer for the past two weeks is concerned - the compilers had no alterntative but to pick players they think might do well if they ever get decent balls - never on actual performances on the field of play. 

That is exactly my argument Mike. The guys are picking their favourites. If I had to pick a Bok backline based on what guys have done before, that might not be far off. There has been nothing to go by but in terms of effort shown, Rhule would be up there last week. This is a week by wee basis thing isn't it?

In that case, Morner Steyn should be at 10 ne? Hougaard would not be at 9 and Vermuelen not at 8. Philip Vd Walt made more of an impact in a losing side. Frans was again below par. JP was quiet. Mvovo was better and Mastriet did more than either of them so please Saffex, spare me the bullshit. That barometer is not worth the paper its printed on. That is not a true reflection of the week and the 10 position is a definate stand out of why!!

I have told you before, I dont care what you say. Your posts are only worth a read for a laugh. In your eye's Jordaan will never be good but JJ and Taute are saints!! You probably think Taute was MOM against the Sharks. Sorry Saff, he didnt play boytjie! You have your favourites and you promote them at all costs. We all know that.

bocklogic

That loosie you referred to above is Lappies Labuschagne.

 Yep, thats him..I knew his surname just didnt google his first name. I am not saying he is Bok material. Only Saffex makes those calls after 1 game or even 10 mins but it looks like he has the right attitude and mettle to make it if he is handled well.

boklogic

I assume my friend Saffex is panicking and not prepared to go further in discussion of this thread.

We hardly need two dunces adding their two cents worth here.

So we have Arno Botha winning MOM for his performance for the Bulls and we have Deysel winning MOM for his performance for the Sharks and you want to select Labascagne ahead of one of these - go figure.

As for Hougaard at 9 and Frans at 12 - those calls are spot on as both have been the best in their respective positions - not only last week, but also the week before.

You clowns are too stupid to recognise this. Labascagne ahead of Botha and Deysel - oh boy, the prosecution rests your honour!!

Saffex

You really are the dunce here - completely stupid.   I never said anything about Labuschagne being better than Deysel and Botha - and just to irritate the hell out of you I am going to provide the stats on those three players:-

Botha -

Ball Carrying                        -      5

Tackles                                -      4

Line-outs                             -       3

Deysel -

Line Breaks                            -    1

Ball Carrying                          -    5

Turnovers                               -    1

Tackles                                   -    8

Line-outs                                -     1

Labuschagne

Line Breaks                              -    1

Ball Carrying                            -    5

Turnovers                                -     1

Tackles                                    -    11

Line-outs                                 -     3

SUMMARY

there are three ihree issues of not here, namely -

*   Labuschagne was in a losing team playing the Super 15 Champions of 2012;

*   Deysel was in a winning team playing the most miserable outfit in SA Rugby at present; and

*   Botha was no doubt  in the team that was opposed by the weakest team in Supwe 15 last year

Botha and Deysel rightly got the MOM awards - because the rest of their teammates was so bloody poor - they had to give it to someone. 

By the way Labusschgne also comprehensively outplayed Deysel in Round 2 in the game between the Sharks and the Cheetahs.

NOW PUT ON YOUR DUNCE CAP AND GO AND SIT IN THE CORNER BEFORE YOU MAKE AN EVEN BIGGER FOOL OF YOURSELF THAN YOU HAVE DONE THUS FAR.

What I did say is that it is impossible for backlines to function if the functioning of the line is sabotaged by players playing at 10 and 12.   No backline player can perform without the ball - and Steyn and Jantjies completely destroyed performance of  the outside backs by either incompetence or hogging of the ball with the resultant break down in backline play. 

FINAL NAIL CONFIRMING THE DUNCE STATUS

Ja Mike, good one so these two players won MOM because the rest of their sides were so poor - is that meant to be an impressive summation of the situation and you want us to believe that crap like that carries weight.

I think you will find Deysel was on the bench in round 2, but you keep making it up. Labascagne looks handy but he has not outplayed anyone - especially in week 3

Mike you really do speak a load of shit

Saffex Dunce

Deysel was on the bench in the game against the Cheetahs - but when he came on in the second half he was outplayed comprehnsively - remember that try scored by the Cheetahs - now who scored it - I wonder?

No comments about the backline saboteurs yet - I know you have accepted that as a fact,   I am going to watch those two this weekend and I can only hope that if they continue sabotaging backline play - they get the boot.

Bullshit, Deysel impressed enough off the bench to start the next game. Labascagne's try was a simple process, there was no skill involved in that.

Come Mike, step it up, this is all a little too easy

Saffex

Next dose of statistical medicine urgently required and her it is:-

Deysel    -  

Ball carried      -     5

Tackles made   -    2 

Labuschagne -

Try Scored      -     1 

Line Breaks     -     1

Turn-overs      -      1

Ball carries     -       2

Tackles made  -     11

Line outs          -      1

I really would put the above info before the village idiot and ask him who was the better player on the day?   I think he would go for Labuschagne - but may be wrong - after all idiots of the world unite and he may agree with you.

Um Duncemike, one played a full game and one off the bench.

But hell, Deysel was only on for part of the game and had 5 ball carries versus Labs being on all game and only having 2 ball carries.

I can see which player made the bigger impact and it was not the lad dressed in white

Saffex

2 tackles - he was on for the second half - and allow me the privilege to inform you that he is a loosie.   Is that good enough for 40 minutes on the field.   Sure his ball carries was impressive - but no try (while Deysel was on the field of play - remember),no turn-overs in possession, no line out catches and only 2 tackles.   Sound good in one aspect and poor in the rest.   Would not say that Deysel is really top class - but let it be.

Deysel was this supposedly tough  guy,  but  Andy Powell tossed him around like a toothpick. As soon as this guy is matched physically, which he will be in any serious test, he becomes a non factor.

And I see the old Bawrongmeter has Werner Kruger at 3......Werner Kruger....man that really pisses me off. How many times does this guy have to flop before they give up on him.

Um Mike, you will find that Deysel was on the field for all of 15min!!!

Yep Moz, Deysel is a powerhouse, but lacks the savy. Werner Kruger is no test tighthead, he looked a good prospect many years back but flopped.

He and Deysel had good games on the weekend which is all that Bok Baro truely measures

Ha ha there is really no end to this mans stupidity and ignorance.

So now you have to be on the winning team to be considered "a good player!" Who said anything about selecting Labuschagne ahead of Deysel or Botha anywhere? All we are saying is Labuschagne looks like one to watch for the future. No one said we would toss Alberts out and throw this man in right now.

So next week Labuschagne gets MOM and then what is this stupid prick gona say then?

Saffex, I can assure you that Deysel was selected against Stormers ahead of Botes purely because Plum was preparing for an arm wrestle and needed the closest thing we have to Alberts out there. Cheetahs play a lot looser than Stormers hence Botes with his pace and getting to breakdowns. It was horses for courses really, not what he did in 15 mins..Ha ha incredible. What Deysel did this weekend though was play well enough to hang on to the jersey this weekend too. I can also assure you that his 5 carries in 15 mins were not flash carries. Sharks were keeping it tight and winding down the clock as they were blowing hard. His 5 carries were all just hit ups around the ruck to set up next phase and let the clock wind down.

One gets a try and 1 is on for 15 mins with 5 clock winding hit ups but Saff can see which one made the bigger impact and it was not the one in white..ha ha..Thats all I will say!

Mike, is this fool even watching these games? Its getting a little irritating having to sift through all the shit he writes to find something of substance. Here is something of substance for you Saff and I hope it sinks in...PLEASE, stop speaking rugby. You know nothing of what you speak!!

Saffex

Ok Deysel was on for 15 minutes - I thought it was for longer.  Anyway none of his carries really had a major impact - but Labuschagne's turnover , lie break and try was much more important.

Deysel is a real problem case.   In the WP-Sharks CC game there was a rolling maul.  Sinclair was in the middle directing the traffic and Deysel slapped him in the face five times.   When the Referee stopped the maul by a penalty to WP, Sinclair gave him a uppercut and he landed on his backside three meters away.   Sinclair was red-carded - but no further action was taken because of the slapping in the face by Deysel  Big hance to play this guy in anything - he is about as clever as a donkey.

boklogic

Did you notice the great silence about what I said about Francois Steyn - Saffex apparently realizes I am right about my statements and now he has triedthe ignore strategy.  He still elsewhere said that Steyn is the automatic selection at 12 for the Springboks.   I realy think he is a disaster in that position.     

Stringbean, your stupidity knows no boundaries does it. For a start, who said that a player had to play for a winning side in order to considered a good player huh?

But more to the point regarding your ignorance. In week 3, Deysel and Botha were selected as the Bok flankers courtesy of the highly respected and renowned Bok Barometer! Both obvious choices given their MOM performances for their respected sides.

But what did you do, you went and informed us that the Cheetahs flanker, Labascagne, should have been selected as one of the flankers after week 3, once again displaying your sound grasp of the game.

Stringbean, may I suggest that in future you start challenging someone of your own calibre for this is all becoming a little too easy for me and a little boring in fact. I am going to have to start insulting Moz soon in order to prevoke some worthy exchanges!

Lift your game thin man - candy from a baby ring a bell?

Saffex

You believe what rugby writers concocted and make it highly respectable - but you do not believe anything about stats?    Ok let me put it another way around - you love rugby writers when they agree with you - and you hate stats because it normally contradicts your version of events.   What a joke - don't you realise it is th selfsame journalists that have an agenda to promote certain players - despite them being rubbish.

I read somewhere that a sage said - "It is more honourable to be a prosititute than to be a politician".   I think that that also apply in many ways to some  journalists as well.   Maybe not to the five mentioned - but they have their own skelerons in the cupboard insofar as rugby players are concerned.   By the way - is Jantjies PRO one of the five journalists invovled?

Dave, are you doing what you do best again? Lying??

I take no notice of the Bokbarometer so there is your first lie. I said Labuschagne was better in a losing team than most our flankers this week. He was a thorn in the side of the impressive Chiefs. Not the misfiring Stormers or hapless, we cant beat the Kings but should have beaten the Bulls, Force team. Deysel and Botha enjoyed home games. Labuschagne played the champions over 12,000km's from his home and put in a massive performance. These are things that a true rugby analyst delves into but I would not expect as much from you.

I never said he should be a bok. Simply earmarked him as one to watch. I have watched this guy in 2 games now only and am impressed thus far. Still way too early to make a call on a Bok selection. My name is not saffex. Guys are not rated in 10mins.

In my personal bok barometer, taking in to account the opposition, the oppositions performance on the day and leading up to the game, where the game was played amongst other things, Labuschagne had a far bigger game than Deysel who was slightly better than 43 other guys who couldn't hold onto a ball in a boring, arm wrestle and Botha whose own coach said that was the worst performance he has seen from the Bulls who played the crap Force.

Had the Force got 10 more points and the Stormers just 6 more, would those guys have been MOM? Had the Cheetahs won, who would have been their star player? Labuschagne, thats who. Please, lets not judge guys on the team result. We looking at the individual here and the individuals performance. An individual can not win a rugby game but he can win respect and that Labuschagne did.

Anyway, you too thick to see past your nose. An asshole in the true sense of the word!

Mike, Mike, Mike.......I know you are not the brightest button in the box, but for a start nothing is highly respectable other than my views on rugby!

I'll say this one more time, stats tell me very little as they provide no CONTEXT - get it?

And yes I would rather take in the views of 5 rugby writers regarding the performance of the SA players each week than look at a list of irrelevant stats. I rely on my eyes when it comes to performance....the fact that these 5 writers back my observations up is confirmation that I am right and twats like Stringbean are wrong.

The only stats that interest me are player profile stats

Stringbean what am I lying about? It was you who said that the Cheetahs flanker should have made the Bok Barometer side in week 3.

Get this into your stupid head the Bok Barometer is not defining in terms of Bok selections. Its just the cumulative choice of 5 writers per round. In week 3 they were spot on regarding the flanks - Botha and Deysel were by far the best, Labascagne did not even come close.

Again this exposes how little you know about the game. Habana at 13, bwhaaahaaa - good one, keep it up old sport

 Lets get this right, you think Habana at 13 is worth a laugh yet you will have JJ Engelbrecht at 13? Shit I wish I could punch some sense into you sometimes!!

I never once said Labuschagne should be in the Bok Barometer. I did not know there was such a thing until you posted it up. I simply read it and disagreed with most of it. I could see this was someones personal preference as it was pretty close to what the Bok side would be but certainly not a reflection of round 3 of play. Not even close. I then said Labuschagne doesnt even get a mention. If they are going by week 3 SA players, Labuschagne was definately our best prospect at flank. Results aside, watch the play and then you tell me if Deysel or Botha played with the heart, skill and passion of that boy. He made an impact against a champion side that was dominating his team..14 more guys like him and Chiefs would have got walloped! I dont care about stats, I watch the game and Labuschagne has the right attitude!

Please give us some proof of me not knowing the game because I would put Habana at 13..Dont just say things. Stormers are clearly not working as is so to change things around and bring their best players closer in would be a start. This coming from a man who wants Frans Venter on the wing over Basson..Yeah Dave, you really know your stuff. At least Habana can play 13!! You really can not say I am wrong until you have seen it. How do you know Habana doesn't play 13 and score a hat trick..Then what will you say?

Stringbean you are lying now - it was you who said the Bok Barometer should have had the Cheetahs flanker at flank in week 3.

JJ is playing 13 for a reason, hell he was injured for two games and walks straight back into the 13 spot this week. Habana plays on the wing for a reason. Habana has had a few outings at 13 which proved a complete and utter flop as the guy was completely lost at 13. His positional awareness was non existent, he ran the wrong lines and he has average to poor hands - he will never make a centre and anyone one with a grasp on the game would not be stupid enough to suggest Habana at 13 - your ignorance shines bright.

The bloody obvious thing to do is move Jean to 12 and play the younger, quicker de Allende at 13......or play the impressive Pat Howard or JP du Plessis at 13.

Habana at 13, what a bloody joke

 Incorrect Saffex..I did not know of the Bok Barometer until you posted it. I still dont know where you find that barometer. I read what you had posted and disagreed saying if this was based on performance of week 3, what the fuck was steyn and Hougaard doing there. Why was Lambie there and not Morne and Labuschagne did not even get a mention.

Thats what I said! Can you explain why Morne was not at 10. He was clearly SA's best of round 3..Is this perhaps someone else who may be sick of Morne like most of us posting his favourites..Sure looks like it..Sure smells like it!!

Why was Morne clearly our best 10, because he kicked all his kicks?

And you are lying, you said on this site that the Cheetahs flanker should have made the Bok Barometer side in week 3

 Dave, please post my comment where I said, "The Cheetahs number 7 SHOULD be bok barometer numer 7!"

I clearly pointed out that i disagreed with this shit you posted up (which was a bok barometer. First time i have seen it and still dont know where u pulled it from) and added what my changes would be. I said, and I remember clearly, how does the Cheetahs number 7 not even get a mention. I stand by that. If that was the Bok Barometer for week 3 and was a true reflection, Steyn would have been 10 and I believe labuschagne should be at 7 based on all factors taken into consideration. Stand out performance from him in WEEK 3

Saffex

In essence you makes a hullabalooo about this weekly Boks barometer - and then quoted it as per above.   I ,ust admit that I think it is the biggest rubbsish I have seen in a year and want to say briefly the following:-

*    All the full backs were total rubbish in Round 3 of the Super 15.   None did anything noticeable but for the goal kicks of Pietersen - for the rest they must as well have bomnated anybody who played on Saturday.

*    Th wings produced nothing - becaause they virtually never saw the ball - the best wing was Mastriet - neither Pietersen of Habana should even have been mentioned.   If they really was to be in contetion can you really provide any info on what thy have achieved in the Sharks -Bulls game.

*     At 13 De Villiers did nothing - tried nothing and was harmless - so what reasons can be found why he is on the barometer?  Whether you like it or not Jordaan was marginally bettr at 13 - although he virtually never got the ball from the famous backline saboteur.

*    At 12 Steyn was crashballing all the time - achieved nothing as a consequence and in fact was the main reason for Plumtree to say there is something seriously amiss in the Sharks backline that they are working on to correct.   That problem is entirely centered around Steyn.    So why is he rated - please some cogent examples - not fairy tales would help in this regard.

*    You say Morne Steyn kicked all the conversions - but he also did what none of the other fyhalfs managed to do - he scored his once-a-year try ibn Super 15.   Barely adequate - burt a hell more than the spiritless Lambie and Goosen achieved - and the atrocious normal display by Jantjies.

*     All the scrummies were hopeless and the fact that Hougaard got the barometer nomination tells you a lot about the nomination by the five journalists.   They saw nothing - so just thought somebody must be in there and they absed their decision on reputation.

*     Loosies - I wonder whether they even bothered to watch the Cheetahs game before they decided on the loosies.   

You cannot provide any positive info on the backline prformances - info based on stats or anything at all that can substantiate the barometer contents - if you can give examples of things that actually happen and why players are included - I would like to see that.   Meantime omputer analysis indicates that at 13 th following was the order of achievement of the centers playing in Round 3:-

1.    Sadie - only because of the amount of degensive work he had to do in the game - neutralising Williams in the process.

2    Jordaan

3     Mapoe

4     De Villiers 

As foor 12 the evaluation on real performances are s follows:-

1.    Ebersohn (for the same reason as Sadie)

2.    De Allende

3     Olivier

4     Steyn

In both cases the barometer selection is based on squat and any real on field performances will indicate that   Anything else is imaginary and fairy tales in the mind of the unthinking