Dropping NH players fom the Springbok squad is always a subsequent eye-opener

We had a long history of NH players being dropped from the Springbok squad after average to poor performance on test level.   Most of the ended up on the bench after recall and some real failures was not even even selected as bench players.   

Despite the desperate hype efforts by Mozart and co to prove that Louw was a good enough player - he was dropped from the squad and went back to Bath.   It is obvious that Bath made no request to Erasmus to release him from the squad, he was sent packing by Erasmus proving that Mozart and co was again barking up the wrong tree.

I said that the Louw dropping from the squad was not based on a Bath request because he is not even featuring in the Bath 23 playing against Northampton today.   

My sincere sympathy goes out to Mozart, Pakie and AO for being wrong the umpteenth time and for the resultant exposure.  I should have informed Bath they should have consulted with the three world-leading rugby analysts before that happened.   Sorry about being so neglectful!!!!

It would be interesting to see if the following article brings out a rational and mature in Ou Maaikie or will it be the normal biased immature prejudiced BS. I would not be holding my breath though.

Todd Blackadder relaxed about when Francois Louw will make his Bath Rugby return

The Springboks flanker is back at Farleigh House during the Rugby Championship rest week

• 16:50, 18 SEP 2018
• Updated17:07, 18 SEP 2018

Todd Blackadder is keeping an open mind as to when Francois Louw will make his Bath Rugby return.

The South African openside is back at Farleigh House after coming off the bench for the Springboks dramatic 36-34 win over the All Blacks in Wellington on Saturday.

This coming weekend is a rest weekend for the Rugby Championship; meaning Louw could play for the Blue, Black and Whites at home to Northampton Saints.

However, with Sam Underhill, Tom Ellis, Zach Mercer and Taulupe Faletau all fit, his DoR is in no rush to throw him back into a Premiership game.

He admitted Louw's performance suffered when he was brought on as a substitute for the Premiership opener against Bristol Bears, in between playing for the Boks in Argentina and Australia.

Blackadder said: "Today we're just going to take it easy with him and see how he's feeling before we make a decision.

"We're going to see how he rolls and whether the time zones affect him, because we felt the effects in the Bristol game.

"We brought him back and he wasn't quite right. We'll see how that pans out and we'll make a plan for him going forward."

As previously reported, Bath had been hoping Louw would be available for the games away at Saracens and home to Exeter Chiefs, despite them clashing with the final two rounds of the Rugby Championship on September 29 and October 6.

That's still a possibility that could happen, but it now appears to be up to Boks head coach Rassie Erasmus and Louw himself.

"Contractually, he's allowed to play whatever he wants to for South Africa," Blackadder said. "We'll work with him to see what his thoughts are.

"We won't know until next week whether he's going to be included in their (South Africa's) squad. Doing the best thing by him is doing the best thing by our team as well.

"I don't want to be the one who puts him under pressure. If he does go back to South Africa, I've got no problem with that.

"If he stays, he's competing with all the other boys for a jersey."

Wrong about what, exactly?

Pakie

You were desperately trying to give Louw a write-up in a game where he was poor and that proved to me that you were writing crap.  There was no way he was an adequate player in that test.

Fact is that Louw was released and the chances he will come back to SA is remote.    Dofdoos can try as much as he likes to soften the blow by quoting a newspaper article - the fact remains that Louw is not a crucial player for Bath as Le Roux is for Wasps.

What a load o f crap do people have to put up on site - especially by our self-proclaimed  world experts in rugby analysis and Dofdoos.      

It has just been announced that Willie Leroux will be available, but it appears Rassie never applied for Louw to be available. Even Louw's club wanted to give him back, but Rassie declined. 

My write-up about Louw was perfectly factual. Every instance can be verified to be no more and no less than I described it. You tried to shoot holes in it and the footage proved you wrong.

We all agreed Louw was off the boil in the second Argie test, no one tried to pretend otherwise.

This year's test season was always going to be about whether Louw can still compete at this level - I said as much before the first Argentina test.

With Kolisi an automatic selection and PSDT cementing himself as the blindside, where would the coach fit Louw in, exactly?

So I still don't know what I was "wrong" about.

"It has just been announced that Willie Leroux will be available"

Is Willie available now or not...it seems press reporting is amiss...what's the true story...I see they have announced the team without him...puzzling???

One wonders if there is any accuracy in reporters...sports, politics or whatever...are we living in an age of error and deceipt? Who the hell can we believe??? The Red Indian used to say,"paleface, he speak with forked tongue!"

Lügnerin falls over his own feet yet again! When did I "hype" Louw? When did I cover up any failings? I said he had a less impressive second Puma test than the third, conclusion that he "needs a big game to dispel doubt". Did I not rank his All Black performance as poor? I ranked him 5.0. Where's the hype? You on the otherhand made a boob of yourself over reaching in your attempt to belittle his excellent first Puma test. You have these players you don't like, and attack them endlessly, sometimes personally. You claimed Louw was one of the geriatrics "who cost us the WC", yet he was the second best fetcher by far in the competition. Having a particularly good game against New Zealand. These are the hallmarks of a bigot.

Now you claim I have been undone? Dream on Lügnerin, that will never happen. Certainly not by you! Outboxed again.

AO

I said it before - the way you assess player performance is totally devoid of fact.    When a player fails in a test in both defense and attack - you give him a write-up that is beyond belief.   Louw was substandard in the  first Puma test and I was amazed with the BS you wrote about that contribution.   It was the case with the media who in general regarded his performance as sub-par as well.  When Louw just repeated his sub-par performances in subsequent games you pretended to criticize him - but then insisted he should be  retained in the squad - what value can be attached to that "criticism"?    

I have criticized many players in the past - but I have never invented BS to justify my criticism and look at the factual situation. I have never made vague and unsubstantiated allegations about performance and above all have never :discovered: deficiencies that nobody else bar the three most prejudiced members on site have identified.   I never made he idiotic claim by Mozart that the three of you are so good as rugby analysts that you discover incidents no other analysts in the world could do.

Your arrogance and prejudice is beyo nd believe.     

I have never failed to provide an accurate description. Never. That's why what I say is consistent with footage. You have had many troubles with footage, which has left you embarrassed too often. 

Never invented BS? 

1. Morné cost Stade a win against Yar? He wasn't playing. 
2. New Zealand ran at Morné all day in 2014 and failed every he'd on tackle? They ran at him twice, he made all his own tackles. 
   
3. Morné cost the Boks the 2012 Dunedin test, yet the score was 8-8 when he came off.
4. Goosen  was subbed after the lineout try by New Zealand, it was Morne's fault. Only, Morné was subbed right before the lineout. 
5. Du Preez cost the Boks in England 2004. Yet he wasnt involved in any England attacking movement leading to a try.
6. Louw was a failure in the world cup, yet was by far the second highest pilfer in the competition.
7. Morné was being discarded to a French soccer team. 

The oak looks like Sir Graham Henry

Why not watching the SA test?   Wearing the no 7 jersey is meaningless if it does not go along with performance.

Why not watching the SA test?   Wearing the no 7 jersey is meaningless if it does not go along with performance.

Get lost arse-fly.  Why did you not cover Louw's performance in the game yesterday instead of making another fool of yourself?  

Dunce

Why don't you do the rugby thing and try and p rove that Louw was so good yesterday - my description of his performances were wrong.  That is the rugby thing to do from a debating perspective.   The only thing you ever do is to react to postings of mine and nothing else.  

Can you bring nothing else to the site? 

So I was right all along - you admit publicly you are a poephol fly!!!!!!!!!!!!