Dave's "imposing tackles"

These are the ones I could pick up, will probably find a missing one or two when I run through the game again checking for other stuff. Nothing imposing about this stuff, down in the first contact in most cases, no tackles beaten. Bog standard, the basic carrying into contact forwards to all the time. Lood lateral in two of his carries, weak stuff.

Marx was the closest we had to an imposing carrier among the forwards, at least forging ahead in contact a few times. Best of the bunch was Eben at 49:54 when he spins half out of the first tackle by J13 and drags the guy with only a hand on his jersey a meter or two before making another few as he goes down. At least Kits made a few meters which ESPN didn't want to give him, but not much.

But that's my opinion, time stamps are here for the pundits to make up their own minds. If this is "imposing", the bar is pretty low .

Etzebeth carries

08:28 Perhaps 1m, loses possession
30:06 0m, falls forward
49:54 spins, gets grabbed by the jersey, makes about 4m
52:20 straight down
54:56 1m to the tackler then down in contact

Lood carries

11:33 2m, pushed through the tackle by Etzebeth but goes to ground anyway
29:55 about 2m to contact, straight down in contact
34:32 lateral run, falls forward in tackle
52:02 lateral, then down in contact, crawls another 1m

Steph carries

34:37 runs about 2m into Lappies, straight down in contact, play called back
44:52 2m fumbles and drops the ball in contact
51:58 supported by Etzebeth, straight down
53:35 straight down in contact
72:12 about 2m or 3m before contact with Mostert & Louw driving behind him, straight down in contact

Kits

74:16 about 1m then down with Mostert driving behind him
75:58 hit laterally in the tackle, then falls forward
79:40 about 2m, hits tackle, straight down, crawls on his knees for another meter or two

You did a lot of work. Obviously not as good as I thought in rsal time some blokes looked better than that. You got to trust your eye sometimes though and i don't believe in numbers mostly. Anyways good work I can't be arsed to do that shit.

Sooo, bottom line Bokkies are creaking and set up for a big wakeup. It's like a way of life for your guys I almost feel sorry for yous... almost. 

Boks were far more impressive in defense than carrying. The Japs defended well, we only really overwhelmed them with the mauls and set pieces. Jap forwards beat 11 tackles, our forwards beat 1.

All that's changed with Lomp  coming in, is that he has replaced Stephanie as first runner and first process tackler. Consequently Lomp is now our leading tackler and Stephanie forced wider is making  a few non process tackles.....so his success numbers  have  plummeted.

Lomp is not a power runner, and he is very slow. Best he can do is fall forward. Right now  we don't have a destructive forward runner like Savea or Vinny.

Yeah I don't really get your definition Dave. With imposing I have something above the average in mind, something that jumps out you and and makes you go "damn, this is some good stuff".

What you're describing is a dime a dozen in a game of rugby.

Brits is amazing in contact you tool. By far the best Bokkies booker. Here's the deal pal, when you have to have half your team recovering thr ball you aren't playing very bwell now are you? Pakie is trying to teach you Carrot so listen carefully and shut up. 

I think you meant "hee-haw" hahahaha! Bout right for you. 

Against weak teams Lomp's size may ensure some go forward. Against top 10 opponents those long giraffe-like legs will simply be skittled.

Lomp has added little that Mostert didn't provide and taken away about 30 Rugby IQ points.

Here we have the distortion brigade at work again.  And then we have the classic that Mostert flop in line-outs when driving mauls are intended and he has been proven repeatedly to be physically deficient.

Whenever Mostert missed routine tackles the distortion experts blame somebody else - normally one of their pet hate players like De Allende and Du Toit.   One of that group used to post under the name of AO - but now use the user name  CAMB as well,  It is clear that when CAMB is posting AO is nowhere and vice versa,

There normal targets are always the coach and always the same players - if they can't find legitimate reasons they distort and lied openly what happened in games.   There other measures include match reports that is totally distorted.   Mozart invented the technique and he has now three clear co-liars.

It is clear that they regard themselves as the real rugby expert analysts and even bragged on site that they see things in games that no other real experts  in the rugby world saw.  To get anything really objective out of them is impossible and their attacks irrational.

That is why I believe they put warped inp uts on site and throw in sentences that they support the Springboks while in fact wishing that the Springboks lose so they can blame Erasmus and their pet hate players for the loss.   Perfect liars and distortion specialists personified. 

Just read the following and note the present ranking of for instance  Japan and Australia and you will get the message loud and clear:-

 "Against top 10 opponents those long giraffe-like legs will simply be skittled."         

Apparently (according to one self-declared genius) your locks and one lock/loose forward suffer from thin ankles, skinny legs or long necks. What weird players you guys must have.

Add thin shoulders and wrists to that description.  I which I was a cartoonist to sketch the players they describe!!!!!!!!!!  LMAO.

But then you must realize that the same dolts regards themselves as the best rugby analysts in the world.   It is more  than weird players - it is especially weird site members, LMAO    

Strangely the Springbok (animal) leaps very high but has spindly legs, ankles, etc. I leave it to others to draw their own conclusions

Hall Of Fame

29488 posts

My guess is 95% of fans would say Stephanie.....I mean Houwing positively anointed him, nobody else got a tackling mention. But there's a Mostert in the ointment. 

Stephanie played 1023 minutes......Mostert played 863 minutes having been subbed for 17 minutes in his 11 games. Stephanie played 12 games and 63 minutes off the bench for a total of 1023 minutes. 

Now Stephanie made 172 tackles in 1023 minutes, or a tackle every 5.95 minutes.....Mostert 140 tackles in 863 minutes , a tackle every 6.16 minutes. Very similar, and of course Mostert at lock wasn't in as good a position to tackle after scrums. Roughly a draw. 

But while Stephanie missed 31 tackles for an 84.7 success rate......Mostert missed only 21 tackles for an 87% success ratio. Advantage Mostert. 

My point is not that Stephanie wasn't good defensively.....he clearly was strong in that area, even if his running and lineout work left something to be desired. And Mostert was flaccid ball in hand as well. But why is the equally good or better defensive work by Mostert totally disrespected....not even mentioned by Houwing? 

It's disgusting bias and until it stops I will continue to set the record straight.

As usual ou Mike has nothing to say about the topic at hand, but simply chooses to regurgitate his stale old anti-poster tirade. Mouldy as last year's bread.

Any idiot can bleat like a sheep from the sidelines throwing around accusations and calling names. It requires no work, no intelligence and adds no value.

JW if you want to see weird looking rugby players look no further than the hahahahahaka.

When DuToit tackles the opponent goes back wards. With Mostert the tackle is not as dominant. Stats never reveal these qualitative facts. 

Mostert lacks a degree of physicality. He is of course much more physical than backline wannabee Matfiled. 

Mostert has a great heart and a huge engine. That means Rassie has no problem keeping him on all 80 minutes. Ditto  Steph. 

I would definitely not start Mostert against England. 

On a hard fast high veldt ground at altitude against a lesser pack like the wee abs maybe play Mostert.

At 112 kg Mostert is a bit light but nowhere near as bad as the string bean matfiled. 

Hope all this clarifies matters for the oaks

When DuToit tackles the opponent goes back wards. With Mostert the tackle is not as dominant.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. These grossly simplified generalizations don't really help much, Beeno.

As per normal the two "experts" do not tell the real story about what happened iro of 

*   line out  and rolling mauls when Mostert played; and 

*   crucial missed routine tackles preceding  before scoring of tries. 

That is where they lied and lied and lied in the past.   The issue is also complicated by apparent weakness in scrumming,  Just have a look at what happened in the last 10 minutes in respect of line-outs and scrumming in the game on Sunday and the whole issue will be clear.

And then we have the continuous attacks on Du Toit and De Jager even if the media and everybody else praise them for hat they achieved in games,  In those attacks they have no problem with lies as well. 

When De Jager and Du Toit failed to make meters in ball carries in traffic, the village idiots  forgot how they praised Albert and Louw for the same alleged "failure".     

Best thing - ignore their BS and just look at the rugby results.  They have been predicting losses in all games in 2019 bar the WC minions and they are getting desperate - so if the Springboks do not lose see how they cringe and carry on trying to find imagined faults,   They never bothered to congratulate the Springboks winning the RC and tried to find reasons why the 2015 losers not winning one match were better performers than the 2019 winning team.   

As per normal the two "experts" do not tell the real story about what happened iro of 

*   line out  and rolling mauls when Mostert played; and 

*   crucial missed routine tackles preceding  before scoring of tries.

So what do you want to say about these issues? Bring some proper information and put an argument on the table instead of pissing on everybody's shoes .

The issue of driving mauls have been discussed over the past year and totally distorted by the three main village idiots living in denial about it.  I also referred to the mess on Sunday in the last attempted driving maul when Mostert was around and they are in denial as to what actually  happened as well.

I also want to add that in the RC tests this year - Mostert was hopeless in line-outs in the AB  test and NEVER used for that purpose in the subsequent Argentina test.   Incidentally in the Aussie test this year when Erasmus forced his way physically  over the line they never once referred to that effort other than to claim that the try was never scored,   When Mostert tried the same thing in the Argentina test he was carried back meters from the try-line.  In that case what happened was ignored.      

Take three examples in the case of Mostert missed tackles:-

*   Two missed open-field tackles in the Wellington test in 2018 caused havoc for the Springboks but never mentioned by anybody and no response when I raised the issue - the all-out attacks were on Du Toit missing tackles in that test.

*   The Argentina test this year Mostert missed a tackle on Sanchez and the liars on site blamed Du Toit for Mostert being run over by Sanchez,

*   When Mostert missed a tackle leading to one of the AB tries in the round robin part of the WC - the fake coward posted two photos indirectly blaming Du Toit for the missed tackles leading up to both the AB tries.

The examples are clearly fake news rubbish they started on site.        

I also referred to the mess on Sunday in the last attempted driving maul when Mostert was around and they are in denial as to what actually  happened as well.

It's very simple to see why that maul didn't work. I'll show you the difference between the previous one from which we scored the try and that one.

Top frame: Look at the immediate bind Snyman gets in the try scoring maul.

Bottom frame: Look where he ends up in the second one - behind Mostert, no bind on him, so the Japs push in on him and immediately wheel the maul. It's nobody's fault, we just didn't get the bind and the maul was doomed from the start.

Our mauls worked well with Lood though, there's no denying.

Mostert was hopeless in line-outs in the AB  test 

Nope, he wasn't. Discussed, disproven, done and dusted.

NEVER used for that purpose in the subsequent Argentina test

True, but your reason for that is conjecture.

Two missed open-field tackles in the Wellington test in 2018

I can't remember that far back and not sure I have a copy of that game. Since you provide no reference to footage this may be a thumbsuck for all I know. You've done it too many times in the past.

The Argentina test this year Mostert missed a tackle on Sanchez and the liars on site blamed Du Toit for Mostert being run over by Sanchez,

There's no lie, the footage is plain for anyone to see.

When Mostert missed a tackle leading to one of the AB tries in the round robin part of the WC - the fake coward posted two photos indirectly blaming Du Toit for the missed tackles leading up to both the AB tries.

Nope, I posted four photos, questioning whether he could have had better judgement in that situation. This refers only to the first AB try in that game, not to the one where Mostert was involved, as I've told you multiple times already but you're too stupid to get it. Here is the thread.

And stop dragging up old stuff under the pretense that it has been "ignored" (like Mostert's lineout performance and the Steph/Sanchez issue). Those incidents have been discussed in detail with visual evidence. Stop being so damn tedious just because you can't get your way. You're like a child.

Listen dim fool I proved conclusively what I wrote about and that I have nothing else to offer to answer your warped interpretation.   So that says it all.   Everyone of your explanations are weird.  I referred  to the failed driving maul when De Jager was off the field - no comment.  Why was he excluded from line-out jumping in the Argentina test if he did not fail in the AB test?  Even you admitted that it did happen.   In the whole AB test he took 2 line-out balls and was outjumped by the AB's in the case of a third line-out when he was lined up to take the throw-in.   That pro ves failure dimness.