PTSD and Limp hit the gainline with a thud and make little to no ground. Etzebeth is simply a better athlete. Limp is nothing resembling an athlete. PTSD is not an especially physical player. Already under José, he has a very deep history of being utterly dominated. Etzebeth is one of the key players who sets the tone for the rest of the team. If Eben struggles, the rest of the pack struggles. Steph can do no such thing. I've seen PTSD have two very clean, good tests, but even in those, there was someone else setting the tone for physicality. Both were in 2018: The Wallaby win and loss at Twickenham. In the latter, Thor was getting the Boks over the gainline. In the former, Esterhuizen dominated the entire contest, and determined the entire complexion of the game. Limp has never had this kind of impact. When going through his career, you look at big moments, and he just hasn't delivered. When you need Limp to make a solid carry, tackle... anything. He just can't do it. Limp is born after his time: 1940s.
Kwagga vs Steph (Last 9 Tests For Each Player)
Kwagga faced stronger opposition in his run of 9 tests; PTSD's run goes back through mostly minnows. Kwagga, in spite of starting 4 of those games, has 3.49 mpr to PTSD's 2.05 (above the usual total; his strongest production, due to minnows). Kwagga is at 90% tackle percentage, to PTSD's 83%. They've both won 3 turnovers, but PTSD has 7 concessions to Kwagga's 5.
Taking everything into account, our three best loose forwards are Thor, Wiese and Kwagga. Wiese's 98% tackle stat is unbelievable.
Kwagga was carrying into very heavy traffic. It's PTSD who likes to occupy the tramlines.
Silly $h!t.
Not really ….how many times have I reported on Dud’s play on the left wing. Where was Dud Toit when he was monstered by Duhan….raaaaaight at outside centre.
He is NOT an effective runner in the close in channels….he can’t break tackles, he can’t step, he can’t offload. A zero gain dead end.
I saw all the above BS and came to the conclusion that both Mozart and the Kindergarten is so besotted with their own ideas that they miss on what actually happens in games. They have pet hate players and they do not ever see anything positive by the players or better still they do not want to see anything they do not want to see. To discuss player performances with them is like talking to the ship of fools they both are on board with.
Pet hate this, lies that... why don't you put down some facts? Even though Kwagga played fewer minutes in that 9 game sample against superior opposition to PTSD, he still outperformed him with greater production. Before you open your mouth, let that sink in. Look at the first Lions test where he fielded all those high balls and had Lions launch into him like a missile... most metres and with a higher average metres per carry than PTSD with 0 penalties and only 2 turnovers conceded. Kwagga is tough, brave and productive!
He is the most used Dave….but totally toothless. Tall, no acceleration, no real strength in his legs. A sitting duck. So he is simply a recycler.
Yes, most used, and that's why José & Krutch are idiots with zero analytics and clout. Putting the fate of the team in the hands of flubs. The fact that they do it doesn't make them okay. All those fringe breaches and your pal José gives it a thumbs up! What a flippin' clown you are UnterO.
Strongest? The man is pap. You are deluded UnterO. Absolutely lost at seas. Kwagga and Wiese highlighted how little we need PTSD.
What exactly does PTSD bring? He is porous and immobile on defence. How'd that have improved our chances? His carries are slow, predictable and weak. As a cleaner? Slow and underpowered, as a lineout option? What is he? Overrated. He offers nothing. Production that is ranked 17th of all flanks in SH rugby is not going to give you an advantage. PTSD is never an advantage in any test. Ponderous, passive, unthinking, clumsy, moves like a baby giraffe on ice, poor skills, moderately athletic... yes, we can see now how he achieved that 17th ranking, and it makes sense why Kwagga blew him away. Wiese being the most effective carrier in the team and best defender by far also blew him away. You'll never see PTSD or Limp rank highly like that. They never have, at any level of the game.
As evidenced. No UnterO, as evidenced by nothing. A popularity award is not evidence for anything. If you were as smart as you think you are you'd realise you've just been blown apart here. PTSD excels at nothing. I keep challenging you to provide something tangible but you've got absolutely nothing. Player of the Year when it was the likes of Pollard, Faf, Louw, Thor, Mostert, Beast, Etzebeth who actually made our WC. Limp and PTSD were not needed. Look at the All Black test to see where PTSD's value really lies.
PTSD was the populist vote based on South African preference. Nothing more. A poster boy. The media darling. You talk of strong carries and strength yet you have no references, nada. Why don't you stop being such a Karen and accept the facts.
You are telling me he is the best player in the world, yet you cannot tell me where his production can be found. We have already exposed his poor carrying, poor defence, what else is there? Breakdown prowess? Sure. You're busted Unter.
We won the WC final without Lomp….he departed at minute 22. We won the deciding Lions test without Lomp we were down 6 points to 10 when he got subbed. Hell when he departed the AB test we won, NZ were up by 20 points to 17….a big unit, but not a high output player. In all three cases Mostert was on the field when we actually turned around the tests.
And we won the Lions series without Dud…..we were losing when he left and the scores were dramatically in our favour after he got injured.
So how, I ask with tears in my eyes can they be considered as crucial to Bok success.
A team game, and who do you suppose are pulling their weight? Each and every piece of evidence refutes every word that escapes your mouth UnterO. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Of course an individual effects the outcome of a test. A fetcher for example like Louw in the Welsh semi, or a tighthead prop like Coles who couldn’t hold in the scrums when facing the Beast, or a lock like Mostert who makes a critical lineout steal as he did in the WC final.
You can’t blame an individual for the loss of a test, except in very specific circumstances eg Kriel missing the Japanese centre and literally losing the game. But over a 60 test career you would expect an outstanding player to lift a team’s propensity to win.
Look at it this way….a team down to 14 men almost always loses. Maybe that’s worth 15 points. What’s the difference an outstanding player in any position gives you….5 points?
Call it 3 points. Three points to the positive this year and we turn 2 losses into wins and draw two other tests which we lost.
Yes a player’s win record over a long test career is a valid data point in comparison to other similar players over the same time frame….Dud Toit vs Vermeulen for example.
The logical extension of your argument is we will win as much if we played Orie vs Etzebeth.
