Du Toit Key to Springbok Success in WC

 If I can find the match on the internet I will took a look at that so-called match-saving tackle.   However, since you are in the habit of making up imaginary occurrences on the field of play - I do not take you description of anything as true and correct. So I will check to see whether you are anywhere near the truth in this case.        

 You can't have a match saving tackle in a match you lost Rokkie...it was a try saving tackle.

Michael will just reinterpret the video. It's what he always does. But on the subject of videos, he whined incessantly for me to look at the Shark v Stormer game earlier in the season. It was supposed to show Damian dominating Frans. It was hilarious to see Damian fail to find touch with an unpressured clearance kick that got run back for a try! And we never heard the end of the Morne kick last year, but this one left the Stormers defence a sitting duck. But in his usual way he just reinterpreted the entire incident so that de Jongh was at fault (I didn't see him in that movement for the try myself). Hilarious! The lengths these people go to uphold a faulty preconceived idea protected by a wall of irrational and overly sensitive emotion. It truly boggles the mind.

 I do not lie about interpretation like you and Mozart did in the case of the Kuridrani incident.   It was a total misrepresentation by Mozart and you abetted it.  That is not the first time that kind of misrepresentation was presented by the two of you as factual.    
If I can find the match video of the Wales test I will have a look at it - have been unsuccessful thus far.   In view of the past history of you two I am not going to believe your match description on that Matfield tackle until I have seen it with my own eyes.      

Actually. I told it exactly the way it happened. Morné kicked well up-field, over 60m and the Boks were able to comfortably transition into defence and the defensive line pressed hard and fast up field. There were three missed tackles before the try, the last of which was Lambie rushing wildly out of line and taking an Aussie out off the ball and that left the gaping hole that Kuridrani ran through.

Your interpretation:

1.Morné missed touch
2.Australia ran it back instantly for a try

You denied the distance of the kick. You denied where the Boks defensive line was. You denied the three missed tackles. You denied that Lambie rushed out of line. You denied that Lambie created the gap that the attacker ran through. That is call revisionist history Michael; you did not like the way it happened and reinterpreted the entire incident so that Morné was directly to blame. In other words, you lied.

 Desert Disaster
Dead brain - Habana had a yellow card and waiting to come on.    If the dud Morne found touch with that penalty kick it would have been a throw-in for the Boks with 15 men on the field of play.
The fact that Morne failed to find touch with the penalty kick was criminal in rugby terms - it would be bad in all cases, but in this case it was criminal.  The counter-attack was strong and  very effective.  What your twisted bird brain fails to realize is that the 80m meter kick you lauded gave extra space for the Aussies to run into - and was totally negative.
Every logical person said that was Morne BS that caused the loss of that game - but in your twisted mind you tried to wiggle him out of that one.  You said the reason for the try was poor defense - but that defense should never have been necessary if Morne did not f#ck up in the first instance.    

Rubbish ....absolute balls. De Allende was lined up on Kuridrani, went high and got handed off. Case closed.

Damian has been struggling all year head-on. He is strong on his feet, not strong in the upper body. So when he attacks your shoulder he can drive through and often break the tackle. It is clever because he isn't so far away that the defender can dive laterally. They have to grab him high and lean sidways which is a weakened body position and footing. It gives him the advantage. So naturally, the Stormers have worked to exploit that by giving him the chance to attack out wide and with space to run. But head-on? Heck no. That will be his real test at 13. Adi got swarmed, de Jongh at 12 got swarmed. Australia in particular will isolate him . He was run through several times against the Rebels and when trying to punch it up against the Cheetahs got dumped. To be quite honest with you Serfontein is much stronger in the upper body than Damian. 

 Moz&Fox, to take Andrews' views on Matfield as jealousy is stretching your agendas a bit. Matfield did not replace him outright. Andrews played his last test in 2001 at Twickers in November. At that stage Matfield was already 24 yo and only made his debut earlier that year. Andrews was still the preferred lock for the boks that year though, at just a couple of months short of 30 yo, it was not as if Matfield competed against a lock in his prime now was it? Matfield, the "Greatest lock the world has ever seen" was kept out of the bok side until he was 24 yo, by a jealous, vindictive shrinking 6'7" hasbeen?
ROTFLMAO!

 A bit of both, but like I said, jealousy is stretching it a bit. Naive and over optimistic about PSDT, most likely...jealous,  I think not.

So a naive, over optimistic, 6' 7" joyful ex enforcer. Hahaha......ja well, I suppose it's possible.

 Draad 
Thanks for exposing the BS spread by Mozart on this site.   By the way I would rather have an inexperienced kid in the team than a useless non-performing 38 year-old - thank you.

Seems Andrews may not be brother locks in arms as far as Victor is concerned....but he clearly rates Alberts:
 “You’ve worked out the shortcuts, you also know that cleaning the ‘oke’ out at full pace can hurt so you wait for Willem Alberts to clean him out."
Maybe Alberts is not the sloth Tokkie claims.

 Moz, read through that piece again. Some of the opinions were added by the writer. The màjor concern is thhat Matfield shies away from the harder physical stuff and in all fairness,  that is true to a certain extent.  I do however feel that Matfield will actually willingly write himself off in a crunch game. The game actually changed quite a bit during the last 10 years in respect of player sizes. If Matfield started playing today, he probably would not have made it as a lock.Adding to the size debate, although he is on the lighter side, it must be said that he has uncommonly, thin and lean legs, which account fo? him being at least 10kg lighter than would normally be the weight for someone with his build.  Hence his nickname being Kiewiet. It also accounts for his agility and speed around the park. Although his shoulders are broud, his chest is rather small. He is a freak of nature, more tendons than muscle, but stronger than most his size. He should have been the backup 5, but sadly Meyer backed the wrong alternatives and now we are stuck with him alone...unless PSDT can do a miricle. Not too bad a player to be stuck with though. He must be used searingly though, because we would be in a dire mess if he should get injured now.

Blikkies, what a refreshing change to hear someone other than the usual members talk sense, even though I don't rate Steph as highly as you - though it must be said Lood is nowhere right now. Agreed on Duane, he won't benefit from RC game time, lets try get Schalk some game time there and give ourselves a security blanket. 

No single player is the key...except in this context,perhaps a flyhalf...I am a great supporter of PSDT but this is a ridiculous and misleading statement...the whole team selection is the key and how good their strategy is the key...sacrificing rugby young prospects for older experience is short term glory, a safer option but with longer term negatives...a very foolish Saffa , over cautious attitude...give the younger guys the reins and venture....the future of our rugby lies in the longer term...no WC victory for us...not in 2015 and the prospects don't look too good after that unless we change and have a progressive ongoing selection.

 Seb
That is the right attitude I believe.   I do not think that a team comprising in the min  of players who failed already in 2011 is the way to go.   Four years on the failed players of 2011 is not going to be any better, since they are way over 30 years of age and over the last two years showed a serious decline in performance.  I do not think we are going anywhere fast with that lot - but we have to bear in mind that we have Meyer as coach and his psychophants on this site as well.   They absolutely refuse to see the problems already in existence and we are stuck with a lot of real dodos as a result.
      

 Mike I agree with most of your say...but the Alberts question puzzles me...I agree with you his stats have not been impressive but I surmise a lot of the critics are singular and individualistic and segmentated a game to ribbons. Rugby is a team game , not a 10 man game but a committed side of 15....at least it should be because that's how I remember it....Gurus can occassionally win you games but solid, clean, intelligent rugby wins you games....I've observed this in rugby, small sides can beat big sides, minnows do struggle against the giants but minnows can become Sharks (and I dont mean Natal Sharks )

Rugby is played, unbeknown to some everywhere in the world...even in Kazakstan, India and Bermuda. These guys are really true rugby lovers and struggle against odds, no where do they dream of accolades but play because they love it.

Ask Just Win , my NZ friend who lives in Poland...they play there in minor divisions of the ENC but they simply do it because they love the game.

The IRB should wise up (just as bad FIFA) to build rugby and give least exposed countries promotion, either but exposure costs, tuition and expense by m entors from the top rugby playing countries, I know and saw Fitzpatrick doing this in Georgia and Russia.

Lets support rugby positively, have our criticisms, but let us do it respectfully and with a sincere love of this marvelous game.

 Mozart
Lets lo0ok at the following:-
"Rubbish ....absolute balls. De Allende was lined up on Kuridrani, went high and got handed off. Case closed."
That is an outright lie.  The line up at that stage was De Allende was lined up facing Matt Toomua and De Jongh Kuridrani.    Since Kuridrani made a run to the inside - De Jongh did squat, made no attempt to cover the break  and just looking apishly at the unfolding scene.    He was supposed to be guarding Kuridrani - and since he did nothing De Allende had to run to his outside and tried unsuccessfully to tackle Kuridrani from the side.   That is what in fact happened because De Jongh as per normal went AWOL.
De Jongh was taking up position outside of De Allende - if he was not there to cover Kuridrani - who was he covering?
So stop spreading tripe.