Depth Chart (SXV R1-R4)

Silly Billy

How and by whom was the above schedule compiled?

The schedule depth chart was typed by finger, by me. Thankyou for your query, if any further confusion arises do let me know. 

  About as useful as the overused broom I threw away last week

Haaaaahahahahahaaa!!!

Cornal Hendricks ... ???

lol ... !!!

Poor sod doesn't even know who our talented players are.

I see he doesn't rate Jaco Kriel, Augustus, Mostert, Ackermann or even Schoeman.

No Serfontein, Janse van Rensburg or Simelane ... not even Snyman or Whiteley are good enough it seems ...

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaa!!!

I don't see his favourites either. Guys like Frans Steyn or Willie are clearly not good enough.

What an idiot.

No surprise to see De Allende not making any of his lists.

Now I understand why he hasn't produced a match 23 ... he just doesn't have a clue.

Think I'd rather go fetch that overused broom back from the rubbish bin than field his ignorant list of players. It is at least good for another sweep or two.

Serfontein doesn't play Super rugby. Unless you think Montpellier is based in Pretoria. Given the closeness of your Broke Back partnership with Mikey, one can't rule that out! 

Whiteley played one game. He is out the rest of the season. It remains to be seen whether he will be back for the Boks. Therefore, he cannot feature on a depth chart. Injured players don't qualify as "depth" Herr Albi. 

Simelane played one game. Some good touches, some bad. He had butter fingers on several occasions and was untested defensively. It's a big call to say he is anything, yet. We need more time to see what he can and cannot do. 

Jaco Kriel is playing for Gloucester. That too is not a Super rugby team. You really need to pay attention . It's all in the title. Mostert is also playing for Gloucester. 

Frans and Willie are also playing abroad. This is becoming rather embarrassing for you. 

Damian? What has he done the past four rounds? Is he better than André? No. Better than Sage? No. Odendaal? No. Vorster? No. This is all very simple Albi. 

Back in your box CC

"Serfontein doesn't play Super rugby. Unless you think Montpellier is based in Pretoria"

I have a question, Doos ... your lists of so called Super Rugby "depth" ... exactly what are you trying to put together?

Is it to help you decide on your match 23? We know you've been rather hesitant to share your thoughts with us ... or can we take your team no.1 as your starting Bok 15?

A re they listed in order of preference ... TEAM 1. = Boks ... TEAM 2. = SA A side ... and TEAM 3. = reserves?.

Hendricks? Is he a replacement option for  Nkosi or Mapimpi if injured?

Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaa!!!

Are these the boys you want at the World Cup, Doos?

I did not look further than 12 and when I saw rthat I got the feeling the use of prejudice bove sense is what he uses,

What part of Super XV Rounds 1 to 4 does everyone fail to understand? 

Ambiguous code? SXV R1-R4? What else could that possibly mean? 

Well, lets see if we can get this thread back on track. So far we've had to repeatedly go back to the title for directions. Who is our best loose trio made up of? Do we agree on the locks? What about the front row? Do we need these overseas based players? Any positional switches, such as Willemse to 12 in preparation for 10? Who is our form tighthead? 

Saffy has Steph back at lock and Marcel at 8. Interesting. I don't think Coetzee is test material, personally. The latter not based in South Africa, but still interesting thought. I reviewed a few of his games last year. Struggled to assert himself carrying the ball up. Physicality is still an issue. Duane is significantly better. In fact, I think we could play a number of players at 8 who are better. 

Well, the list of myths you bought into tells me something entirely different. You did at one point rate Cooper the best 10 in the world, JJ the best 13 since Gerber, Damian the best 12 since admission and best in the world, you bought into Lambie too. Also Lood. Did you back Watson by any chance? How about Mujati? 

I don't want your respect. That too will never change.   

Dave 

You must never take Sully Billy seriously.   He is a total rugby illiterate and pretends that h knows something about the game.   Since he lives in cloud cuckoo land and dreams up things whatever he   writes on site has no relation with factual situations and is normally no relation to fact. 

A routine statement of his is that Meyer introduced an effective and modern flat attacking game for the Springboks.   That statement has no factual base at all Meyer himself said that the Springbok backline players do not have the necessary skills to play a ball-in-hand game - so how Silly Billy arrived at that myth only he would know.  

Ever time he came up about how he analyzed games - you can be sure what he comes up with  is total BS based on prejudice against certain players.          

When has Coetzee been a strong carrier for Ulster? He was actually quite weak. I watched those games and have logged his MOM games. You're just smarting because you actually believed there wasn't one instance of Mostert imposing himself and it took me a few minutes to refute that!

Furthermore, Coetzee already has a test record. He has no record of ever being able to assert himself physically. He was dominated by England is the 2012 series and was dominated again throughout 2014. He was trialled again in 2015 and overshadowed.

Mostert on the other hand was alongside Eben and Whiteley as our most efficient defenders. He was a solid Bok. 

The odds of Coetzee ever living up to your lofty words are as likely as that of JJ, Watson, Serfontein, Lambie, Kriel, Lood and Damian. 

You are always too quick to to give a player a pass and never learn from your mistakes. Your pride blinds you. Ende. 

Here you go Mike. How many times must you be debunked? Now compare this to the "modern" and "sophisticated" game under Rassie last year. Always easy to pick your pocket. 

Silly Billy

I am afraid that what you write on this has always been traced down to two things - total BS or  total lies,    There is no issue of debunking. it is easily proved that you never understand what goes on in games - write  dreamed up fairy tales and in the process do not care whether it actually happened and thus do not hesitate to lie and misrepresent things to support what you say happened.

Rugby usage by backline players are defined by the scoring of tries by backline players - especially when the backline contributes to the scoring and it is not the result of individual brilliance for which both Habana was and Le Roux is still known.   We compared those figures iro 2012 and 2018 tests and in the end the BS effort was to compare an entire different set of tests because you again lost the plot totally and tried to lie your way out of the true situation,  .   

Tragic that somebody do have that childish attitude and one should really pity you for being exposed as to what you really are - a total rugby idiot ,  Some cruel people will laugh at you,    

"There is no issue of debunking. it is easily proved that you never understand what goes on in games"

If it's easily proved, then prove it. I like watching the wriggly wee wirm squirm; writhing in anguish. If only thou hadst teeth to nash. 

"Rugby usage by backline players are defined by the scoring of tries by backline players"

Tries scored doesn't tell you how the backline is being used. It doesn't even tell you who assists those tries. The fact of the matter is that the modern approach to the game demands inclusive use of forwards. Think attack, not merely backline attack. Hence the need for forwards with skills. You'd have Lood and Steph in the same XV, yet harp on about backward archaic rugby that didn't exist under Meyer. You contradict yourself. You contradict yourself even more when you back the selections of cul-de-sacs like Damian. You accused Meyer of "aimless" kicking, yet aimless kicking has defined the very nature of Rassie's reign. Not only that, a lack of space for the wings, who themselves repeatedly have to kick to get behind the defence. This is so delightfully contrary to your assertions it couldn't ever be funnier. Watching you get red faced as you labour in vain to force your waffle onto others is almost as funny. 

When comparing 2012 and 2018? That was quite funny as well. As when we assessed those tournaments, we found a trend for weakened defence by all teams and an increase in running by all teams. You chose to omit a plethora of data points to skew the results towards your warped narrative; I posted everything for all to see. You were debunked. Why do you do this to yourself? You call me stupid, I always defined stupid as an inability to learn from mistakes. You always return to barren hunting ground. Your very own trail of tears. Try something new for a change; perhaps your success rate will increase begin. Have a nice day bud. 

Silly Billy

The previous argument you raised and I proved as utter BS related to backline play and you claimed Meyer's backlines played a flat modern attacking game.   That proved to be total  BS,  

Now suddenly you changed your story and came with a theory about the modern game - of which you are totally clueless as well.  Fact is that you still do not know what is really needed in such an environment.   It is the effective linking between forward and backlines and the participation of forwards in such play - the key normally is the loosies, but other players can also be part of such a game plan.    Now lets look at that in practice - it was not possible in terms of the Meyer game plan.    It is much more noticeable under Erasmus - but only with a player like Du Toit becoming involved.   Whiteley is also good in that kind fo game - but Meyer never used him - while he rarely used Du Toit.   There is a long way to go before that type of game is playe d by SA teams - but at least under Erasmus  there is some progress in that regard.

Now for the BS about kicking - nobody ever said that  Kicking is not part of the game.   However, in the case of Meyer  strategic kicking was never a consideration.   So what si strategic kicking?   And what is aimless kicking?   Every posting of yours refers to numbers of kicks - never about whether  it represents strategic kicking and what is aimless kicking,   What is absolutely clear is you have no idea about the difference.   I can give you a indiction what the difference is - but I am afraid it would be an exercise in futility,

It is better not to discuss what actually happens on a rugby field with you,  It only gets totally frustrating.    

. 

     .   

Dave

Even if Silly Billy actually watched games it is meaningless -  he does not understand rugby at all and would as per normal come up with total BS.      

Saffy, you have exposed nothing, aside from your raw nerve. Your track record is abysmal, and you stand a heap of ruins in what was am embarrassing shambles of a riposte. Perhaps Lüg nerin is rubbing off on you.

No, it is not. You have proved nothing. Attempting to make the loudest noise doesn't amount to any kind of proof. In fact, you're beginning to look rather Mike-like in your incompetence. 

Silly Billy

When I criticized the fact that Mostert has a major deficiency as to setting up driving mauls you came up -

*   with two examples of what you called driving mauls which were in fact no driving mauls at all showing that you did not even now knows what driving mauls entail; and

*   when Mozart found a maul in the French test in November crediting Mostert for the successful maul  real analysis showed that Mosert's contribution actually was minimal  and in the end after catching the ball and the only reason for a successful maul is the contribution made by Du Toit and ultimately Vermeulen.   

Did you watch the game between the Stormers and the Jaguares last night?   There was a number of mauls set up by Schickerling and Du Toit which was highly successful  leading to tries  by Kolisis and the two scrummies.   However, that is beyond your comprehension - so I suppose you have not noted those.      

You lie, I posted a maul that Mostert directed and participated in that scored a game winning try. You have yet to provide one inkling of evidence that Mostert ruins any mauls.

I haven't spoken ill of the Stormers set pieces. In fact, when most were prophesying Doom and gloom I said their forwards could take better attacking sides out of the game. You called me a stupid BS. 

With Both feet in the air and the maul going backwards it was a wonderful contribution to nothing.   How the hell does a player who is off the ground doing anything directed and aprticipayted in scoring of the try.   Du Toit in fact stopped the rot and took over the directing of the maul    The maul only started going forward of the Du Toit intervention and with the help of Vermeulen.  FACT

There were no mauls for Mostert to start and wreck - he was unable to set up mauls on test level. 

I always call you a stupid BS - that is what you are.   I probably in making te remark referred to your idiocy abut the backline of the Stormers - nit wit,    

Mostert was lifted up because Steph was being shoved back and into him. Mostert directed the players to concentrate their efforts there and the maul moved forward. Mostert played a key part in that game winning maul. Really Lügnerin, I covered this in detail in a separate thread. 

Fancy that though, that the catcher with his back to the opposition is a primary driver of the maul. One would think he is in a mechanically weakened position. One would be foolish. Thank heavens we have Monsieur Lügnerin to show us the way. 

This is the weirdest piece of BS I have ever seen in writing about rugby.   I have never seen this type of hogwash ever om a rugby site before,   Listen dimness it is absolutely clear that you know nothing about driving mauls and the rules applied by the referees at all.    

I have always worn you about not to write BS on site - but you have NEVER learned.   First thing in driving mauls is that if a player is between  the  jumper - the player organizing the  maul - and the opposing team - such a player is immediately penalized for being off-side in the maul.

So what you claimed happened was totally impossible as the maul would have been illegal and the Springboks penalized if that did happened.  Listen I know you know zero about rugby - so do not keep confirming it constantly.