https://www.ruck.co.uk/all-black-legend-dan-carter-ranks-his-five-toughest-opponents/4/

....the bloke at number 2 might surprise some:

Who will ever forget poor old rooitwit rating Luke Watson above Schalk Burger!

Bwhahahahahaha.

Schalk was as hard as nails no surprise there

Experienced choices by a man who was at the very top of the game and perhaps the greatest flyhalf and player ever, an opinion based on experience and expertise, Who would know better?

 Schalk was a legend so was Jonny Wilkinson.in their respective positions.

"Who will ever forget poor old rooitwit rating Luke Watson above Schalk Burger!"

His dislike for Burger wasn't rugby related...

The red-green-envy-goblin rides.

Luke was a good player but messed up by his screw-ball and unstable family but he was never in the same class as Burger.

Burger was sheer magic and a pleasure to watch at the time.  After breaking his neck om 2004 he still was an outstanding and great  player  with some of the magic gone,     The next catastrophe was illness om 2012 after which he did not play any rugby for more than 2 years,   After his return to rugby in 2015 the magic and performance  were both gone/   

Schalk's output in 2015 comprehensively eclipsed any segment of Steph's career at any level of the game. In fact, if you took all the "best" bits out andd out them together, they'd still be inferior. Ende. 

Kindergarten Imbecile

What about the knock-ons  when plating a first receiver from the scrummie and killed  all progress with backline play by the Springboks?    

Schalk was very sure handed. Hence his distribution and offloading was significantly higher than Steph. His metres were also higher. If you want handling errors, look no further than the WC Boks who tried to open it up against minnows 

Knocking in four balls in the process was not very secure in  ball skills  and happened in all games.  Maybe I should not blame  Burger for that - it was a crazy Meyer idea that caused it/  

However, I mentioned  one thing about Burger  that probably was caused by him breaking his neck and that was a distinct  reluctance to be involved in  ball protection and  recovery - which was especially noticeable in the 2007 WC final where all  the loosies did squat about it and there were numerous breakdowns where turnovers occurred, Three of those involved Frans Steyn.    That is a major reason why I classified that Final as the worst WC final the Springboks ever was involved in - but like the Kindergarten Imbecile  you really are you don't know why that component of the game is important, and missed out the very important role players like  Du Toit and De Allende play in  in that component of the game/    

Just a bit of advice - it is so easy to hit holes in  the garbage you write on site  - please read and study what really happen in games  before making postings on site.                   ,  

Organhuffer Burger and Du Toit are both Bok greats and Rugby player of the year winners.

Please get some perspective regarding Du Toit.

Thanks

Dud Toit is a process player.....he makes lots of phase runs and phase tackles. Because the team assigns that first receiver/ first defender position to him. There’s some value to all that effort....but you could assign any loosie to that role.

Schalk by contrast is a contribution player... offloads, open field tackles and before his neck injury, tons of turnovers.

And for the record, Schalk’s hands were as safe Boucher with gloves....the man could take the ball off his toes. Comparing Dud, an out of position small lock, to Schalk ....is silly. Itoje is the small lock Dud has never been.

2015 RWC Scalla was a process player too...even more so...never seen the Boks playing as robotic.

2015 Semi ratings:

Schalk Burger - 7 - Got through 12 tackles in just over an hour, and also forcing a turnover as the Springboks unsettled New Zealand.

 After the loss against Japan, Meyer became ultra-conservative in the 2015 world cup. 

The backline suffered from having Lambie at flyhalf. Lambie was a fine defensive fullback of the Halfpenny type. He had no idea how to play flyhalf. Any backline operating outside him was doomed....and when that backline  included Mvovo and Jessie Kriel, the team was doomed. Kriel putting the final stamp on the match with his horrible missed tackle for the winning try.

Jessie Kriel is pure class. His partnership with de Allende was our most effective, they ripped the AB centre pair to shreds

Steph du Toit is a far far better blindside than Schalk ever was, far more effective physically

Schalk was pretty predictable and loved to attack contact. Was tough but never an ideal bruiser blindside but too big for openside

Schalk played his best rugby playing for Saracens, where he had moved on from the macho need to try smash into people and introduced far better variations to his game

Luke was the better rugby player, a true openside, while Schalk was all heart and physical

Luke was a little fellow who simply wasn’t strong enough for test rugby....which was proven when Snor made him his man.

Dud Toit never beats a tackle... talk about not being a bruiser, scrummies dominate him in contact.

So Kriel and Allende  combined to beat the AB centres? Here’s the Mail’s take:

Jesse Kriel 6

Tested the ageing All Blacks midfield early on, getting around Nonu, but impact faded during the game.

Damian De Allende 6

Carried out his defensive duties against the experienced All Blacks midfield but limited edge in attack.

Vs 

Conrad Smith 7

Nothing flash but showed subtle handling skills to bring in the All Blacks’ wide men.

Ma'a Nonu 8

Exploited for pace by Kriel early on, but showed a range of skills in attack through kicking, footwork and power.

........

You missed it again Dave, but they did say Smith’s contribution was subtle, a bridge too far hey. But the AB centres were rated comfortably above our chaps.

What you missed was Nonu running diagonally across our 22 to put Barrett over for the winner, while Dud Allende was simply umm....confused...and trailed him dutifully without ever making the tackle.

Those ratings are a load of rubbish de Allende and Kriel dominated the AB pair. I remember Kriel beating Smith one on one in that test, Smith never came close to doing that to Kriel

PSDT is far more physical than Schalk ever was. Not a single scrum half has ever dominated PSDT that’s a lie. Nor did Schalk ever beat a defender as he used to target them despite playing most of his rugby at openside

It’s not PSDT job to beat defenders, he is a blindside who operates in traffic and does so phenomenally well.

Absolute bullshit that Luke at 100kg was too small for a test blindside. You don’t make player of the year being dominated physically - simply did not happen. Luke was a class rugby player, great attacking and linking openside - something Schalk was not

Luke unfortunately had misinformed worthless external issues dominating his life. Without that shit he would have had a great and successful test career

A wasted talent if ever there was. Jake being the crap man manager he is, could not handle him being different and a non conformer

So as usual everybody is wrong....except you Dave. Your take on Watson is so pathetically Woke. It wasn’t his fault he was manipulated by outside issues and let down by his coach?

Nope he was a small guy who got huge mileage out of his family name and was so pathetically self centered, he couldn’t even respect the jersey. He got a full chance under Snor in his prime .at age 26 and proved everybody right who said he was simply not physical enough for Bok flank.

For four years Jake tenure was soured by Watson’s non selection, when it was clear to real rugby men that he was a lightweight. That basically killed our whole 2006 season.....the press were relentless.

But tellingly when Snor dropped him there wasn’t a peep from the press, they had learned their lesson. Sadly you still haven’t Dave.

No Mozart

No backline  can function when 80% of the balls passed by the scrummie is to other players than the flyhalf or another backline player,  as happened  in all the WC games in 2015,    Gio and checj the stats and you will find out what really happened,   

Rubbish Luke was never too small for test rugby given numerous opensides have excelled at test level weighing in at 100kg especially back when Luke played. Luke was a more than respectable 103kg.

The few test he did play in he was more than solid enough and at no point proved he was not big enough to play test rugby - what utter rubbish

I’m not blaming anyone other than Luke himself for his off field stupidity in pushing an agenda that amounted to a big fat zero and only ever stood on the way of his rugby

As a player he was super talented - one of the best linking opensides I have seen. Added a completely different dimension to a side than the physical Schalk.

Any coach with half a brain would embrace that difference and have both players in his squad. But no we had the egotistical twat Jake in charge - the school master with the personality of a dead fish and a history of being a shit people’s person, just ask the Beast and the du Plessis brothers

Great coaches are great people managers - able to bring out the best in all types of personalities - something way beyond good old Jake’s scope.

Luke was a fantastic rugby player with a misguided agenda that ultimately defined him. His own stupid call. His dad had fuck all to do with his selections or his talent. He was more than good enough to play test rugby. He was a joy to watch

I have already debunked that stat of your’s Tokkie....pure nonsense. But as usual you wait until the thing is forgotten and then resubmit your debunked theories. So I’m not going to research it again...show us the stats.

One senior politician said the family's honourable role in the struggle meant Luke Watson was effectively a "black player" who should be included in the Springbok team ahead of a white player of equal talent.

The view was shared by Hoskins who has gone on the offensive against his critics, notably attacking former Irish international John Robbie - now a Johannesburg media commentator - in a recent radio interview.

Watson finally got his first Springbok cap last weekend but failed to shine in the 35-8 victory over Samoa. To White, the performance vindicated his theory that the player was too small for international rugby. But union bosses are unperturbed and have since signalled their intent to mould a new Springbok team around Watson that features at least 10 black players in the starting XV by 2008

South Africa's under-21 coach Peter de Villiers was reportedly being approached by the union to take over from White. He would become the country's first black Springbok coach, and this week he said his emphasis would be on transforming the team even if it meant "pain" in terms of results. "Other coaches pick black players in their squad, but don't play them. That's where I am different. I pick the players and trust them by playing them," he said.

...............

So there you have it.....Watson was picked with huge political tail winds and would never have been dropped if he wasn’t utterly mediocre in his test ‘career’ .

That’s a load of utter rubbish - at 103kg he was more than big enough to play test rugby as an openside

His selection was clouded in all kinds of controversy which was of his own doing but given his ability and form in Super rugby he should have been a merit selection as he was an outstanding rugby player

Jake was too much of a prick to ever be able to handle a personality like Luke and good old PDV was never a merit coach

I recall Luke’s tests, he was solid always playing under his own made cloud. Any reporting on his performances can be taken with a pinch of salt as he was hated so

Nothing will convince me otherwise, he was a gifted player more than good enough to have had an extended test career but his agenda dictated otherwise

He was by far our best true openside at the time for Schalk was never an openside but given the presence of Smith, it made sense to play Schalk at 6

He was gifted, he was anointed by the coach, he was promoted by the government.....but because Jake once said he wasn’t good enough, he was damaged. What a load of modern bunkum.

He got his chance, he never measured up, he was dropped and disappeared. He wasn’t fit to shine Schalk’s boots as a rugby player or as a man.

He was anointed by no one. Jake saying he was not good enough means nothing as Jake was as average as they come.

He did measure up, he was solid in his tests and got dropped because of all his external shit - it had nothing to do with his rugby

Luke was better than Schalk - Schalk was as predictable as they come back then - it was all head down bash and crash by Schalk, not the requirements of an openside.

Schalk learnt to play when he moved to Sarries - good old Jake preferred to use him as a battering ram

Luke had far more skill, pace and creativity - with more than enough physicality for an openside

Luke Watson was a good player that could cover all 3 back row positions, at least in Super15 rugby. 

Oh look:

He was a member of the 2007 Rugby World Cup-winning team, has twice been named South African Rugby Player of the Year (in 2004 and 2011), and was named IRB Player of the Year in 2004, among other accolades.

Difference is unlike Dud Toit and Puke he deserved it and achieved it long before he played at Sarries. Puke was chosen in 2008 and failed....case closed.

Luke was no presence at the breakdown. He often obstructed play around the fringes trying to be present for the ball everywhere. If I were a 9 I'd have been aiming bullet passes into his face. He is what you call a stat padder. His work at the breakdown was none existent. Big talk of him died after his 2007 Samoa test, where he was gifted an opportunity to show us his breakdown skills. Brussow was the player that fulfilled Watson's reputation. 

The loonies at it again.   I wrote down n detail what Birger achoeied and the fact was he was not involved in breakdown ball protection and recovery  after breaking his neck in 2004    In the 2007 WC the latter component of the game was a shambles and  that is why it was  by some distance th worst of the three WC finals the Springboks won.

Burger in 2004 and Du Toit were comparable - after that  year if the two players are compared Dui Toit was miles better than Burger,   However, we have two real prejudiced duds who do not want to see what actually happened in games and then  dream up BS to mootivate what actually did not happen.   

The breakdown game by the Boks in 2007 was world class. That was the final where England had a power pack, and competed verociously at that point to stay in the game. This was also the England team that beat Australia so badly at the breakdown and contact points that the Wallabies almost never left their half of the field. The 2019 team didn't face one opponent with that power. The weakest Wallaby side in 45 years, the most vulnerable All Black side since 1998, an injury ravaged Wallaby side. You are a joke Lügnerin. You may proceed to cry at the feet of your Josè Erasmus shrine. 

Burger broke his neck in June 2006, not 2004 you ineffably stupid and uninformed man. That injury was a big part of our setback in 2006, after 2005 where we were within 2 minutes of a TN repeat and won 8 of 11 matches.

After Schalk was hurt we lost 5 matches in a row, showing what a massive factor he was in our team.

Tokkie your ‘theories’ based on totally inaccurate facts are really hilarious.

Mozart

Sorry about the dear in which Burger broke his neck.  After that his perfoimances were not on par with what it was in 2004,

Do yourself the favor of looking at breakdown ball protection and recovery  in the 2007 final.  It was seriously defective,   I know it is impossible for you to comprehend  what that component  of the game actually means  and remember when you wrote on sire that  Alberts did it by pushing away all the opposition forwards - something that never happened..

I find it  ridiculous that you claim that  the Springboks atrocious record in 2026 am  before the 2007 WC was due to Birger not be available due to his injury.   Looking at the Tri- Nations 33-6  against the AB's it is clear you are talking rubbish again. 

Schalk was good don’t get me wrong, he was just poorly utilised

Was always too big for 6 and not big enough for 7, should probably have played 8 - much like Frans Louw

As a Bok he spent much of his time lining up players and running straight into them - he was as predictable as they come

Playing for Sarries saw him utilise his talent, attacking space, playing a good linking role while still playing it hard

PSDT has made more of an impression for the Boks than Schalk did