MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Jul 2013, 00:43#1
And Coenie is no tighthead. Face it he was drilled in the second half after Nyakane came on to loosehead. ...conceding scrum penalties which were decisive. That and the lack of a top quality kicker were the Cheetahs fatal issues.
-
There were some lessons in this game. Willie can be Mr Hyde if he gets the timing wrong. Pretorius in the end offered more than van Zyl. Lood is no Etzebeth....and the Cheetahs loosies lack a power player for these games.
-
Of the loosies Brussouw was best, matching Smith steal for steal. Next van der Walt made some 50 metres ball in hand. Labuschagne, much lauded on the Board was out of his depth. Sure he made 11 tackles, but so did the other loosies and they did so much more.
-
The Cheetahs could easily have beaten these lackluster Brumbies....but the penalties, several of which looked pretty dubious did them in....and the kicking. Never play serious rugby without an 80% kicker, a tighthead for the whole game and some power in the loosies.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 01:42#4
Mozart
Get real the problem was that Silo was scrumming inward all the time and not bbinding. Instead of the brumbies being penalized for illegal scrumming - the referee - being blinded by sheer ignorance - penalized the Cheetahs for that piece of larceny.
How can you make an assessment based on breaking of the law on scrumming and then make a wild statement like you di?
Labuschagne is a loosie - not a prop like Alberts trying to play at flank. Anyway I am used to see how you constantly misread the game insofar as Labuschagne is concerned - same as your sudden change of tune on De Jongh dragging Engelbrecht five meters every time he tried to tackle him - when the real truth was pointed out to you.
Here is the stats of Labuschagne who was injured early in the game:-
Labuschagne 0/0 0 0/2/4 3 0 0 0 0 11/0 4/0 1 0/0
He came off with injury early in the second half and if that did not happen he would have been better still
I also provide the stats for George Smith:-
GB Smith 0/0 0 0/4/9 15 0 0 0 0 8/2 0/0 0
Even though he made some more distance in carrying the ball a 20% miss tackle ratio and no contribution to line out play is noticeable. At least Smith is a better loosie than Alberts and if Labuscagne is statistically better than Smith - Alberts is nothing worth playing in a team.
You cannot have slow waddling loosies in a game against the ABs and the Wallabies.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 08:47#9
Alberts will be a huge liability to the Springboks - he is like having another slow-moving prop in the team at flank forward. No value as a defender - because when the ball is moving out slightly wider he gets to the maul last and he cannot tackle anything moving faster than a prop forward or maybe a slow lock. No value as a line out player. No value as a loosie in ball recovery.
The story of ball carrying has been disproved by stats - his so-called bone crushing tackles spouted by boklogic and Mozart is also bullshit. What is a bone crushing tackle? Is the player tackled in sych a way that he loses possession of the ball in the process? Is he injured as a result? Does it effect the flow of the game or the players subsequent performance? The word is use to illustrate neither of the above. Mozart previously referred to a specific tackle as bone crushing - it was an ordinary tackle of an opposirion player - none of the above happened.
The usage of non-factual terminology to promote players is just similar to Mozart rhetoric about his favourite players - when analysed it turns out to be based on actual falsehoods.
Mozart - so George Smith is not an international test level player as well - because statistically he was worse than Labuschagne in the game yesterday? You are crap spreading again? Dislike of players by you always result in the same thing. You ignore facts and you produce lies to support your statements.
Mozart - I temporarily changed my avatar to cater for you specifically. Look carefully at the words below - it is a classic as pertaining to you.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Jul 2013, 15:41#13
The loose forward trio we played against on the YE tour....Vermeulen, Alberts and particularly Louw resurrected our fortunes. This vendetta against Alberts comes from a guy who thought Coetzee was the answer. He has given up on that now, Labuschagne is the flavour of the day.....but the animus he developed against Alberts lives on. Silly stuff.
22 Jul 2013, 16:20#14
Alberts is a worthwhile player as long as there is a balance in the loosies. If there are more mobile guys included then they balance out players like Alberts. Too many heavies and your pack is not mobile enough, too few and the get pushed around. It is all about balance.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Jul 2013, 16:26#15
I agree with that.....and in fact that loosie trio we played on the YE tour isn't well balanced for the RC. We need a more mobile player in the mix. That would have been Arno Botha....what a pity he got hurt.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 17:48#16
Mozart
I wish I could share your admiration of Alberts - but I cannot. You get lyrical about him - but when he looks at his stats - there is nothing to get lyrical about. He is a very slow player - slower than most props - that delivered nothing in line-out play and can tackle players around the fringes - with 1 to 2 meters gain in carrying balls in traffic - outside traffic he cannot because f deficient speed. His tackle count as a loosie is low and he easily missed tackles on speedy players - especially critical ones. He played no role in most mauls because he arrives too late to have any effect.
Now suddenly we need balance in the back row - but just before you were lauding the combination of the slow Vermeulen, the ultra-slow Alberts and Louw as the back row combination.
I doubt very much whether you understand anything about rugby. You fail to realize that slow back row players become totlly ineffective against more mobile teams in the SH like Australia and New Zealand. We had an atrocious record against them over the past two years and last year was nothing better. The reason is their more mobile forwards take the ball wider and the slow SA forward pack cannot keep up. Againsr the NH teams with their slow playing conditions the strategy of having ONE less mobile loosie can work - 2 never ever can produce adequate results.
Alberts is like having a third prop on the field of play - it cannot work and he consequently becomes a defensive liability. If you watch the test against the Samoans - they scored two tries - both where Alberts failed in defence. Do you for 1 minute think that the AB's and Wallabies would not use the same methods in getting past him?
If players like Alberts and Francois Steyn really produce the goods - I would be their most loyal supporter - but they produce nothing and then they have the psycho's that write about how good they were and yet they cannot prove anything - even statistically to back up their claims.
Please - we need loose forwards - not props to balance the side. .
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#20
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#21
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#22
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#23
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#24
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#25
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#26
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:28#27
Mozart
Did you actually watch the game? Looking at the game again tonight - I saw clearly what happened and what you said are utter BULLSHIT -
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:37#28
Mozart
Did I finally get through to your prejudiced mind that Sio was scrumming illegally - hence your reference to it. Illegal scrumming contains too aspects - straight scrumming by props, proper binding. Sio was scrumming illegally and now you base your assessment on illegal scrumming. You are obviously so single minded in your assessment aimed at damning Oosthuizen that you never watch games properly and just write a condemnation not based on facts - so you don't mind spreading turds all over the show. If a prop cannot guard against illegal scrumming - he suddenly is a poor prop. BULLSHIT IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
Next time you watch a game please check your facts and do not off-load your obvious prejudiced views onto this site.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Jul 2013, 22:46#30
Mozart
Sorry something went wrong on this side - read the full message and then comment. You may obviously not wish to respond - already another clanger to your numerous others. ILLEGAL SCRUMMING IS A NORM ACCORDING TO WHICH THE PERFORMANCE OF PROPS CAN BE ASSESSED.
My advice is apologize for the clanger and then keep quiet about things in future.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Jul 2013, 23:03#31
Well of course there is just a little fly in your ointment...Adriaanse, a perfectly ordinary tighthead had no problem dealing with Sio. This is what Ruggaworld says;
-
"When Trevor Nyakane came on, the momentum shifted dramatically, with the Brumbies getting the ascendancy in the scrums, and they began to edge ahead with Coenie Oosthuizen struggling as he moved to tighthead in the process".
-
Accurate, even a bit charitable I'd say.....the whole thing was embarrassing to watch. Since when does a Bok tighthead get dominated like that....leaving him flat on his face in every scrum.
-
There is nothing as pathetic as a belligerent Board fool who sticks to his preconceived notions, when the rest of the world can see the truth on their screens. Coenie is no tighthead....never will be.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2013, 01:34#32
Mozart = the fool
The clanger stands. It was pointed out too the referee and the linesman that Sio was scrumming illegally inward and then he got penalized for that - afterwards no problem. I would rather be a belligerent Board fool than in idiot that caught with clangers all the time.
Illegal scrumming is a basis assessment and evaluation of opposing props - never heard of such rubbish before. What a clanger!!!!!!!!.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Jul 2013, 01:56#33
Fine, I'm a fool and so is the writer on Ruggaworld.. So I expect I will hear no more from you, which suits me fine. Only a mega fool would contest a fool's opinions. Have a nice life.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2013, 02:24#34
Sorry Mozart
I apologize - it was only after your comment on me being a belligerent fool - that I lost my cool. Should not have done that. It is better that personal insults not be used in any communication irrespective of whether we differ on issues and players - and I am sorry about my personal comments in this case.
Please let us forget about the personal insult side and try to motivate our cases constructively and based on facts.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Jul 2013, 07:19#37
A few hints.....the guy that is folding like a paper towel, the guy that is falling down, the guy who would be falling down if he didn't imitate a tripod, the guy that is popping up, the guy that is going backwards, the guy on the ground that has his hooker on top of him, the guy who is being penalized, the guy making weird hand signals, the guy who is smiling with mud between his teeth, the guy the camera focuses on looking sheepish.......that guy isn't winning the battle.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Jul 2013, 11:10#39
blobok
Don't feel lonely about the issue of scrumming. The laws are precise - but implementation by referees is varying totally. Take for instance a recent match where Jaco Peyper saw a transgression of a player not binding and he did not blow up the player for the transgression - because he ball was on its way back to the scrummie of the other side. However, the next time exactly the same thing happened - Peyper awarded a penalty and his excuse for the previous non-award was given as the scrum was being won by the non-offending side. This shows marked inconsistencies - the offender was guilty both times - and in both cases did exactly the same thing - and legally penalties should have been awarded in both cases..
The law says players must scrum straight and the action should always commence when the ball is thrown into the scrum. What happens frequently is that pushing forward is done irregularly before that happens and in some cases referees allows this to happen and the opposing side is then penalized for going backwards and the scrum breaking up. However, some referees have the scrum reset and others would give short arm penalties to the opposing side.
Scrumming inwards is patently illegal - but often ignored by some referees - like happened on Saturday in the Brumbies game, in some instances in the recent Lions games and in the Twickenham test last year. Some referees would regularly penalize offenders - others would ignore those and penalize the opposition. Incidentally after doing it in every scrum previously - Sio was ultimately penalized for inward scrumming and fearing a potential yellow card - he stopped doing it and thereafter the scrumming became static and more equitable.
The offence directly in contrast to inward scrumming is called the walkabout. This one leads to pushing outwards instead of inwards and result in the scrum turning more than 60 degrees. I have never seen cases where referees do not penalise offenders. Ben Franks is a frequent offender year and one often sees him being penalized for that one.
The other offences calling for non-binding are often enough ignored by the referees. Not binding and pushing with one hand on the ground gives the offending side extra advantage in scrumming - virtually impossible for opposing players to defend against.
Scrumming is an essential component of rugby and the variations in interpretations by referees is unsettling and difficult for the general public to understand.
THE NORM TO BE APPLIED SHOULD BE THAT WHAT IS ILLEGAL REMAINS ILLEGAL AND REFEREES SHOULD DEAL COHERENTLY WITH TRANSGRESSIONS - SOMETHING WHICH UNFORTUNARELY DOES NOT HAPPEN.
