Mozart started a thread aimed at Malherbe, De Jager, De Allende and Kriel - his normal targets for criticism often enough based on misrepresentations on his part.
Buts lets be fair - what about the same question be asked of De Villiers, Pienaar, Alberts, Matfield, Jannie du Plessis and even Du Preez. Lets look at it briefly:-
* De Villiers started in two games and then went out with an injury. His performance in the first game was below par and in the second game he was bog ordinary. He made a very minor contribution through his captaincy - for the rest he was bog-ordinary.
* Pienaar played in the Japan test and failed msierably in that test. Only used as a sub subsequently. Unsatisfactory contribution
* Alberts were injured more than he could play. He played from the bench, When eh did come on he was down to his normal low-activity contributions. Unsatisfactory contribution.
* Fourie du Preez played in all games bar the first one. After the hash made by Pienaar - Du Preez was hyped up to an unbelievable level. Franted he was better than Pienaar, but that still means the setting of a very low bar to make comparisons. Du Preez did well in hsi first game - but then started fading in subsequent tests In the end he ws bog-ordinary and a key element of a grossly deficient game plan Overall evaluation - satsfactory
* Matfield started in two games and was injured in the second game. He went off at minute 60 in the seccond test and came from the bench for 20 minutes in the semii-final, He was just about par in the first two tests and a disaster in the semi-final. Bad news
* Jannie du Plessis was solid in the Japan game - but had his standard quota of missed tackles, made enough balls-ups in the Samoa test to write a book about, the same for the Scotland test and shoiwed zero when eh came on in either the quarter or the semi-finals. Performances on the whole unsatisfactory
So here we have both sides of the story - not a nice-to-read situation.
Coach57,555 posts
28 Oct 2015, 10:53
#1
28 Oct 2015, 10:53#1
