FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  De Jager a flexible ray of hope; Rugby 365

De Jager a flexible ray of hope; Rugby 365

Started by Just_win17 REPLIES847 VIEWS· 11 Aug 2015, 16:55
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
11 Aug 2015, 16:55
#1
11 Aug 2015, 16:55#1
In what has been a dark period for the Springboks, one shining light has been Lodewyk de Jager who has the valuable ability to play both lock positions. The 22-year-old emerged as a Test player last year, and having spent most of the Super Rugby season out injured he has stepped up in a big way, slotting in at five in place of the injured Victor Matfield and calling the line-outs in the Rugby Championship. Although he has played most of his rugby in the number four jersey, De Jager says he feels just as comfortable at five and will happily play in either position for the Springboks. "I just want to play for the Boks, it doesn't matter. I enjoy playing four and five. "Five is a few more challenging aspects like calling the line-outs and stuff but if you are mentally prepared for that then there is not much difference between four and five. "I think five is a bit higher work-rate defensively, whereas four carries the ball a bit more.  "It doesn't matter to me, I feel I can carry the ball and play a part in defence so it doesn't matter to me," he said. While De Jager was as disappointed as anyone in the lacklustre performance in the defeat to Argentina, he was one of the stand-out players for the home side, scoring a try and running a line-out which was quite efficient. "We as the Springboks set high standards for ourselves, we believe we are the best team in the world and to lose on home soil to Argentina is not good enough. "I think the line-outs actually went well, I think we lost one line-out in the 60th minute or something but I think we dominated them at line-out time," he pointed out. However, he was not happy with the way that Argentina were able to disrupt the Springbok maul, and is hoping to get a chance to make that right in Buenos Aires this weekend. "I think we could have mauled better, our maul wasn't as effective as it usually is and they tried to come with tricks and stuff and it worked for them. "We had a look at the mauls and we will put it right this Saturday. "I am hungry for rugby, I didn't play for four months so I am really excited to play and I am just happy the coach gave me a chance to play the last three games. "I have really enjoyed it and I think I have done well, so we will see if I get picked on Saturday. Hopefully I do and I get a chance to rectify what happened this past weekend," he said. The fact that De Jager is comfortable playing in both lock positions makes him extremely valuable looking ahead to the World Cup with coach Heyneke Meyer likely to have to pick three locks out of the quartet of De Jager, Eben Etzebeth. Victor Matfield and Pieter-Steph du Toit. A possible solution to this problem would be to take Du Toit in a utility capacity as he can cover blindside flank as well, although he has currently only got 18 minutes of gametime under his belt. One of the keys in selection for the World Cup must be form, and there is no arguing that De Jager has that right now, which means that he surely cannot be left out, either this weekend or beyond that. By Michael de Vries, in Durban
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
11 Aug 2015, 17:06
#2
11 Aug 2015, 17:06#2
 Some how saying that the Boks set high standards for themselves doesn't sound right when you look at the string of losses.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
11 Aug 2015, 18:05
#3
11 Aug 2015, 18:05#3

Lood has always been good, stood out in a poor Cheetahs side in 2014, making TOW often.


Quality player, has size, strength and a great work rate......good skills and imposes himself physically.


We have a number of others that are of similar quality, sadly useless Meyer has missed out on two of them in Willemse and Jacques du Plessis.


The Bok pack should have at least 3 of Etzebeth, Willemse, Lood, PSDT or du Plessis in the starting 15, with one of them on the bench. Both du Plessis and PSDT are at home at 7 and would be my options there even though both are better locks.


A Bok pack should always have the physicality of 3 of these along with Bismark and Vermeulen. Add two grunt props starting with Kitshoff at 1 and one of Malherbe, Marcel or Coenie at 3

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Aug 2015, 22:15
#4
11 Aug 2015, 22:15#4
Hahaha.....Lomp says 4 carries the ball a bit more. Now there's funny. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
11 Aug 2015, 22:33
#5
11 Aug 2015, 22:33#5
The days of a difference between 4 and 5 are coming to an end. I think the Bakkies and Vic combo is the last of its kind.
Bakkies the enforcer Vic the athlete. Now days 4 and 5 are both enforcer and athlete. We see the likes of Etzebeth, Lood, PSDT, Lewies, Jacques du Plessis and Flip being equally at home at 4 or 5.
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
11 Aug 2015, 23:53
#6
11 Aug 2015, 23:53#6
It depends how you want to play. New Zealand have an entirely different criteria for selecting locks. In fact, I'd say a more focused and demanding criteria. They have a strong emphasis on fitness and ability to run. Skills are critical as this is what supports their entire style of play and every pattern and system they implement. Of course they must be strong etc, but these are not the overriding factors. This is why I don't understand our fans demanding Lood over Victor, it makes absolutely no sense. Lood has poor hands, lacks endurance and is immobile. He would never been seen as a viable option were he a New Zealander. Victor on the otherhand ticks every box. So when we call for a game like New Zealand's, at least demand the kinds of players to fit that game! 
So it is, Lood disagrees with you. He also defends Victor indirectly. With all things considered, I'd say your position is quite untenable. haha hahaha! 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
12 Aug 2015, 00:06
#7
12 Aug 2015, 00:06#7
Bullshit.....NZ currently keep Whitelock on the bench.....not that he is small at 116kg......but in Romano and Retallick they have two enforcer/athletes.
Lood says stuff all about liability Matfield
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2015, 00:16
#8
12 Aug 2015, 00:16#8
Dave you are a tonic. Now Stephanie is equally at home at 4, but yesterday you were selecting him at 7. The way he was tossed about by the Bargies 4 is a bridge too far.
Old Lomp has pulled a neat trick here...only call yourself in the lineouts. But the few times you don't, call the number 8 and loop around. That way you can look like a hero every time. No wonder Eben looked like he could chew glass on the bench. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
12 Aug 2015, 00:32
#9
12 Aug 2015, 00:32#9
 Moz why do you speak so much shit. I have the game recorded kindly point out when PSDT got thrown about. As for the pathetic call that Lood left Etzebeth out to dry is about as lame as it gets.
Geez Moz up your game....you are starting to sound more and more like idiot Fox.
What part of me saying PSDT was a lock who could play 7...much like the impressive du Plessis did you miss huh?
Funny thing is Lood has rubbed egg all over your face for the past 3 weeks. PSDT is even better than Lood so in time you are going to feel a ripe old idiot.
But talk us through Eben missing out because of Loods line out calls....let me guess...just because Eben was under utilised in the line outs this somehow affected his ability to go on the charge, clear rucks or put in some big hits on the day.
Wow Lood had special powers maybe we should make him captain 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2015, 00:44
#10
12 Aug 2015, 00:44#10
Maybe we should. Lomp for captain, calling himself in every lineout.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
12 Aug 2015, 00:48
#11
12 Aug 2015, 00:48#11
And every call went to hand bar one crazy throw by Bismark
Talk us throw Loods calls affecting the rest of Eben s game?
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2015, 01:10
#12
12 Aug 2015, 01:10#12
 Dave
You cannot argue with people whose main aim in rugby is to support players who are non-productive and lie through their teeth when it come to facts.  De Jager "calling himself in every line-out" when he in fact called 5 out of 11 line-outs to go to himself is typical of their thinking.  They cannot find a real reason to demonize De Jager since he performed so much better than low activity Matfield - they must invent a lie and persist with it.   Our very local Herr Goebbels is really very good at emulating his norm - spread a lie repeatedly and eventually somebody might just believe it. 
It is tragic to see members demean themselves to that level - but is also funny to see how they manage to do so . 
   
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2015, 03:14
#13
12 Aug 2015, 03:14#13
Lots of spluttering but the facts remain, in his pack leader role Lomp called on Etzebeth twice.  
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2015, 03:42
#14
12 Aug 2015, 03:42#14
 Herr Goebbels
Were there 16 line-out calls as claimed by you originally or less?  How many line-outs did De Jager call to come to him - is it still De Jager " calling himself in every lineout"?  
You really got yourself into a mess here - so how are you going to get out of this one?   Spluttering won't help you here - you were practising the system here of if you repeat a lie often enough - it may become the truth in the minds of some.
The last contribution was a nice try - it may have been the result of a specific game plan though - so it is not really an answer.   So lets get some real cogent answers this time around.  
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2015, 03:59
#15
12 Aug 2015, 03:59#15
Pervert you really should stop playing these games. I never said he called himself 16 times at the lineout. I said he called himself directly 5 times. At least twice he called himself to take the ball from Burger in a peel around, and 9 times he called himself in phase play. I did that three days ago. Add them up and eat your crow.
  
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 12824Etzebeth was invisible they say.....
August 09, 2015, 15:05:04

They all say that, the fans....the incredibly imperceptive rugby press. But Etzebeth was just huge against Oz and NZ, so what gives. Has he suddenly lost form?

 

The key was in the Lomp try. Lomp is powered over with Etzebeth pushing behind him. The key is in the lineout calls yesterday. Burger was called 4 times, Lomp 5 times....Etzebeth once. And in at least 2 of Burger's lineouts Lomp was designated to sweep round taking the ball from him.

 

 

In other words Etzebeth was engaged once in the lineouts, Lomp seven times.....based on Lomp's calls.

 

 

Lomp was also the player who stood off the rucks to take the ball supported by others including Etzebeth. Etzebeth made one run....Lomp made 9 for an ordinary 23 metres.

 

 

What gives, why has Etzebeth been removed from his role in the lineouts and in the tough carries. He is a much better athlete than Lomp. Hell he gassed Ben Smith up the sidelines a few years ago.

 

 

Who knows, but it would be comforting if our rugby press had the smarts to figure out Etzebeth's role has changed rather than bemoan his absence.


CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2015, 05:01
#16
12 Aug 2015, 05:01#16
 Well this whole explanation is somewhat weird to say the least.  The liar now suddenly has another weird explanation.   He first lied about the 16 calls.  Now suddenly he called himself nine times in phased play.  What the f#ck is that one?   Players fan out in phased play and the ball is passed to the players based on the decision of the scrummie.   This is the biggest BS ever on this site and factually was not what Herr Goebbels stated originally.
He started off with the 16 story - when that did not pan out - he posted the follow-up statement quoted above admitting to De Jager calling the ball to himself only five times - but keep on referring to the 16 story.  Now suddenly the explanation is that he called the ball to come to him "phased play".
Stop BSting - it is no good.  Post your original statement and repeated ones - not the one where you tried to cover up your original lies.   The following is typical:-
"Old Lomp has pulled a neat trick here...only call yourself in the lineouts. But the few times you don't, call the number 8 and loop around. That way you can look like a hero every time. No wonder Eben looked like he could chew glass on the bench."

             
Herr Goebbels you are and Herr Goebbels you will always remain.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Aug 2015, 05:07
#17
12 Aug 2015, 05:07#17
You seem to have very serious comprehension problems. But that's hardly my fault. Blame it on a gene pool of inbred plaas jaapies, a few childhood accidents involving your head, poor schooling, mentally lazy habits, perversions and booze. 
So let me try again, here is the follow up post, which again makes it totally clear two days ago:
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 12828RE: Etzebeth was invisible they say.....
August 10, 2015, 03:19:26

 Well let's provide some help then.....in aggregate Lomp who was leading the pack called himself in lineouts and phase play 16 times....he called Etzebeth 2 times. What's the bloody mystery that we saw Lomp a whole lot more than Etzebeth.


Edit post
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Aug 2015, 05:13
#18
12 Aug 2015, 05:13#18
 Herr Goebbels 
You have no comprehensive problems - an habitual liar never has.   You think you are so clever - you can get away with lies.  
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news