Defence Stats: Forwards (2018)

You're not stupid Blue. 

1. TC - Turnovers Conceded 
   
2. TK - Tackles 
3. MT - Missed Tackles 
4. PC - Penalties Conceded 
5. ST - Starts
6. SB - Sub(stitute) 

Those stats ae as accurate as the myth than the moon consists of green cheese.

The moment comparisons like the above is attempted the competing levels must be level iro of matches played.   To compare a player stats with a player with a  much less number of games can favour the player with the lesser number of games.

For example look at the Snyman situation  - he was a low work rate player in all but his first test.  That allowed him to have less mistakes because he did less where mistakes could be made. So  that males the comparison utter BS,   There must always be a comparable factor and that is totally missing above.   

@Lügnerin: The stats are accurate. Go check them yourself. If you know they are inaccurate, you must know why. If you don't know know why, you have become a liar. Your emotional knee-jerk responses always lead to a hail of egg.

Here's the reality: the stats don't reflect your preconceptions and bias. So you reject them on the basis of nothing. You won't even investigate, therefore you learn nothing in the process. A cycle of ignorance.

@BB: They are accurate. I double checked them. Quite impressive I'd say. 

I can include carries if you like Pakie. ESPN has TC under defence, and I emphasize here the occasions a player has put the team in a transition to defence. A very vulnerable point in play. 

The stats can be fine - but the comparisons are BS in extreme since a lower number of games and low productivity make the results irrelevant.    It does not enter your head that nobody bar a player with the least possible sense would come up with the rubbish.   

I quickly ran Steph's carries just for fun - 130 runs with 13 turnovers = 1 turnover every 10 runs. Gonna do a few more and amend here just for fun, let's see if it's something that's worthwhile to check.

Steph - 10 runs per turnover (130/13)

Kolisi - 8.5 runs per turnover (77/9)

Marx - 15.25 runs per turnover (61/4)

Damian - 10.6 runs per turnover (64/6)

Mostert - 13.6 runs per turnover (68/5)

Mike, that's why you average the results out. As long as there's a fair sample of games (say 5+) you get a comparable result. These are just numbers, they provide some interesting data points. They're not the be all and end all of everything.

The only realistic comparisons can be made when players played in the same games and against the same opponents.   Any other story is a concoction of garbage any scientific evaluator will ignore, 

Like your comparison of 2012 and 2018? 

You're a laugh a second. Watching you conceive a thought is like watching Mr.Bean get tangled inside his sweater, failing to find the neck. 

The only realistic comparisons can be made when players played in the same games and against the same opponents.

Oh what utter shit. In other words we can only compare players from the same team playing in the same game. We can make no comparisons between, for example, Damian and Esterhuizen because they didn't play in the same games. We can't compare players from opposing teams since they didn't face the same opposition. We can't say the best tacklers of the test season were Englishman A, All Black B and Bok C because they didn't face the same opposition.

Like Auge just pointed out, you don't even apply this standard to yourself, so just shut the hell up and stop polluting the discussions on this board with this ridiculous nonsense.

Listen - shit is when people like you lose their perspective totally.   Every match is playing under conditions that could be are in act differing from game to game , where team game plans differ from country to country and  where vastly different are sent to play - eg in the Wales test in June.

Real observers will take all the circumstances into account and dealing with comparisons without the above is not any way to make reliable comparisons.   What Mozart and AO do what they do  is statistical abuse and real BS in capital letters.   Statistically one can compare apples with apples and that is totally out in what they spout. 

Hell - Pakie - why do you not think before you support those two delinquents.    .   

This is quite interesting. He is now using variables I first mentioned three months ago. Things he said where make believe terms. Mike, you need a vacation. Even by your standards, the past few weeks have been appalling. 

Mike, the tearful SJW of Ruckers. Hilarious. 

I do not need a vacation - you need to start thinking and not write BS on site.  

Good times! 

And missed 31 tackles….way, way more than anybody else.

Actually it compares poorly with Mostert making 139 and missing 21……a success rate of 86.9%. Versus Dud’s 172 made/ missing 31….a success rate of 84.7%.

He was also dropped for missing key tackles that lead to tries in the RC and the game against the AB's - however,  to weak to make effective tackles in traffic and a poor open-field tackler.  That is why he is not going to last much longer in the team.   Not in any way a key player like Du Toit.           

True but you keep telling us how brilliant Dud is. So if he is brilliant what is Mostert at 2 points better?

Unter is not taking into account the misses tackles caused by breaches through Steph. Mostert has quite often had overloads in his channel because of reckless play by Steph around the fringes. Not only Mostert, as this often leads to multiple phases of pressure. Consult the Wellington video of 2018 for examples. 

This is another lie - it was exposed  as a lie in the past.   Another BS story dreamed up by Mozart.   Mostert si a poor open field defender and that was one of the reasons he was dropped from the Springbok starting line-up in 2019 in the WC.   The rest is he is weak and not strong eno/ugh to really play in forward defense.       

What exactly is the lie Pervert…spell it out.

Bad players like Steph and Damian aren't just bad in isolation , they make the jobs of others more difficult. How many times since 2018 have we had threads pointing the finger at Mostert for a supposed mistake because Steph made an initial lapse? It's very common. 

Steph is heavy more than strong. Like Limp. They exert unathletic weight against lower level opposition. Against real strength and power? They are blown away. Look at how van Rensburg was throwing those Argies around like toys. That's strength and power. Or Etzebeth charging through the strongest point of the All Black line, carrying defenders for many metres. That's strength and power. Show me where Steph has done this, much less done it frequently enough for it to be a trend. 

Well Duhan blew up that physicality thing. Monstered by a wing. Dud Toit has lock strength, but not unusual lock strength like Etzebeth or Snyman. He is the opposite of explosive, knocked over by the first tackler.

Dud Toit was given the luxury of a rover role and he has blonde hair so he was noticeable….but not effective. A failed lock with the lowest win ratio for any long lived Bok. And a serial injury problem.

Give me Mostert any day who is no less effective running the ball, but a better lineout forward, a better passer and a much better tackler in space. And durable.

A porous defender who can't carry into traffic. But here's the thing: He is emotional. South Africans, who are of weak stock the past couple of generations, love feely people and big dopey smiles. Notice their disdain for discipline, intellect and an inability to handle details. They are afraid of higher thinking. It's been pointed out by numerous foreigners coaching in SA, like Tim Lane, Campese and also Jake (when comparing Australian and South African players): Emotion and blindly following what they are told. The critical thinking skills aren't there. The coaches enjoy the emotional energy of the Saffers, but the grey matter, that's the missing link. Graham Henry commented on that emotional component when discussing their reevaluation after the 2009 season. What do we see on this forum? Irrational hyper-emotionality. A lot of feelings about something without any content at its core. They are told things by the media and doff pundits, and then they wrap that message in many layers of sensitive emotions. You bring all kinds of facts to the table, and you agitate those emotions. These clowns don't have one thing to back themselves up. But look further up how they high-five each other as if their numbers confirm their validity. Desperately weak. They then have the gall to tell you that you only have opinions. These are the same faces who lie and get personal when they don't get their way. I feel quite bad for the people they deal with in real life. 

Never has Steph carried like Etzebeth. Neither has Limp. That right there is a fact. While you sit on your XXXL Omlett compatible arm-chair, I actually go through these games. When Steph and Limp hit contact, they have no driving force. These are players, like Damian, who need to be driven by team members or lean and hunch heavily into contact. They also lead to very slow ruck recycles. Prime running All Blacks averaged 3 seconds or less for a recycle; we are a lot slower then that when Limp and PTSD have the ball in their hands. Both Limp and PTSD are busted on defence, and that's when they can actually land a hit. Limp does better when he is supported on either shoulder and makes an initial grab. Then usually an Eben or Thor lands the knockdown power. 

This is the lesson for you: The difference between merely running your mouth and actually knowing what the heck you are talking about. 

Actually Etzebeth never gets put away by going high. He is cut down at the knees. Often illegally in my view with no arms type tackles that aren’t called as often when going low. With his power he could be a supreme offloader in the tackle if his coaches would encourage it…..Jaws is, and he doesn’t have Etzebeth’s athleticism,

Augie I completely agree with the emotional thinking point…but I have pretty much accepted guys like Chabal for example are totally incapable of logic.

Etzebeth is the Gronkowski of rugby. Only the latter is more appreciated and better utilized. When we consider selections and the extraction of player potential... the Boks really are a mess.