Eat Crow (3)

In the ongoing effort to ensure honesty on the forum, here we have another classic. After I claimed Kuridrani beat de Allende....Tokkie posted this:

 

"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." The incident can easily be viewed at minute 68.40 on this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5sbXByUheo You will see the Aussies steal a lineout and White throws a long pass directly to the Brumbie 12 who is covered by Cat. De Allende is lined up on Kuridrani, clearly knows it's his man and goes for the tackle. He is easily beaten by a stutter step, acceleration and hand off. De Jongh is outside and turns back in too late to make te tackle.  What we have here is classic Tokkie tactics. When a favourite of his screws up he blames it on one of his target players.....usually de Jongh, Alberts, Morne or Victor.  In this case, as in most, it's an outright lie....the skip pass led to a shift in alignment....Kuridrani beat de Allende badly. Case closed.

 Anybody who looked at that game would recognize that you have lied outright about what happened in that case.   De Jongh was line up to face Kuridrani and did squad to defend when Kuridrani went to his inside.   The lie is in the fact that De Alende was lined up to face Kuridrani - even if that was the case  who was De Jongh lined up against?   
This kind of BS description of what happens in games is your forte - you are an expert in doing exactly that.  
You tried to get something against De Allende and lied outright about the lining up of players in that case thinking that you would get away with it.  However, what actually happened was found out - now you try and stick with your original description and said De Jong was too late to turn around and make a tackle.   De Jongh made no attempt to even get to Kuridrani when the player moved to his inside, which is expected when such a move happened.      

Kuridrani never made one inch to the inside....every step he took took him to the outside. To his credit de Allende had no hesitation in committing to the tackle which was his to make....he just flat got beaten.
This was another lie and I'm sure any poster who looks at the video will agree.
Stop lying.

 How the hell did De Allende had to run from the inside and ended up making a from the side tackle attempt on Kuridrani if he was lined up facing Kuridrani.   He was not facing Kuridrani - - De Jongh was.   Part 1 of your lie exposed.    Mozart - you were caught red-handed peddling a lie and you have the audacity to repeat that lie.  

The reason he tackled him side on moron, was because Kuridrani ran to the outside, not the inside as you claimed. Not one step was inside.....so if that's the case and de Jongh was lined up on him....how come, even running towards touch he passed well inside de Jongh.
De Allende committed to the tackle and missed....end of story.  

 This was a farcical description by you from the start.   You never mentioned De Jongh initially at all.  You initially lied and  claimed that De Allende was lined up to defend against Kuridrani and never once mentioned De Jongh as to who he was lined up to defend against.   You still try and avoid answering a question on the issue.  Who was De Jongh lined up to defend against if it was not Kuridrani?   
Look you also misinterpreted what I wrote when I said the initial move of Kuridrani was to the inside of De Jongh - who did squat to counter that - forcing De Allende to run to his outside to make an unsuccessful tackle attempt.   
This whole saga was put on site to attack De Allende - but was so factually  misrepresented that it was incredible to believe.  You are an expert in misrepresenting what happened on the field of play to cover for mistakes made by your favourite players and attack any player you do not like.   You have no qualms about that type of thing and do not mind using endless falsehoods to justify your stories - as was the case here again.                       

An attack on Damian ? More a case of a few people being realistic Michael. As in this incident Moz brought up, he has weaknesses that can and are being exploited. If he plays for the Boks again, he will be targeted with a greater level of scrutiny. Kuridrani will still be there, and should we meet the Poms in the RWC, I would not fancy his chances against their big hard running centres. A little honesty prevents one from ending up with egg all over ones face. Just give it up and admit you were wrong. You don't deserve to come out of this intact after choosing the low road of the lie.

 Desert Disaster
De Allender's defense is far better than that of De Jongh - who went AWOL in the Kuridrani case -  and the useless defender Frans Steyn.   That is a fact of life.   I do not lie like you and Mozart regularly do in match day occurrences.   The egg in the face theory cannot compete with outright lies.  

Actually, through every game I watched - 10 of their most important games - de Jongh was always doing the grunt work and the most secure on defence. 

 Balls - De Jongh breaking tackles and doing the grunt work is impossible and his defence was below par for years - by far poorer than De Allende. De Jongh cannot tackle heavier players and often chicken out of challenges - like he did in the Kuridrani case.  Which put the responsibility to cover his tackles to De Allende.   
There is no way that De Jongh is not a flop in the Stormers backline and what you describe on his achievements are skyscrapers without any foundation.   How you can get addicted to a flop like De Jongh is amazing - but not unexpected, your other favourites include flops like Willem Alberts, Morne Steyn, Francois Steyn, Victor Matfield and Willem Alberts.  That list on its own should speak volumes about your lack of rugby knowledge.        

de Jongh can and has tackled bigger players. Neither of them are power backs, but de Jonghs effective defence has been a cornerstone of the Stormers defensive excellence for years. To suggest the Stormers can be regarded as the best defensive team in Super rugby year in and out with a porous outside centre is extremely ignorant! 

 If De Allende was lined up to defend against De Allende then you make some sense - but MOzart lied about that and the player beaten was De Jongh who vanished from sight and De Allende had to run from inside to try and make a tackle to off-set De Jongh's flop.  
This is really funny - "he (De Allende) is not strong enough in the upper body to hold his own at 12."   De Allende's main strength is his upper body strength that is why he shrugged off Fransie twice - with the latter falling on his backside when he attempted to tackle De Allende.   He has held his own against Nonu, Williams and all other inside centers - beating them with upper body strength.
Insofar as De Jongh's defense is concerned - he regularly veered between missing 23% and 28% attempted tackles in Super 15 during the past 3 seasons - meaning that he miss 1 tackle in every 4 tackle attempts.   This year it was more than 27% - which makes him a defensive liability.   He indeed is one of the jokes you support.
By the way I am not entirely happy with De Allende's defense - even though it is better than that of Fransie and De Jongh - and has written that on this site - but I am not basing my criticism on BS and lies like Mozart did in this case.    If De Allende was lined up to defend against Kuridrani it was fine - then Mozart was right - but that was not the case and the flop who was actually beaten wholesale in this case was De Jongh, who did not even try to make a tackle in this case.        

 Moz, DdA rushed the line to put preasure on the Brumbies attack. He was always going to be off ballance in theevent that Kudriani should go wide. In forcing Kudriani wide, he succeded in cramping the Brumbies backline for space next to the touch line. He did well closing them out, but De Jong was positioned badly for Kudriani going outside. Unfortunate,  but nether Juan or Damian were to much to blame here. DdA was never really in a position to make a proper tackle there. De Jongh hanged back to cover the defence and positioned himself badly for defence. This is a poor example of DdA's defensive deficiency. De Jongh should have covered Damien's rus h out of line, with the winger covering the outside pass, if it came. Mike is not too wrong here. Maybe expressing himself wrong. It would have been futile for DdA to go low for that tackle. It would have taken him out of play for the rest of the move for certain. He had a better chance in going high, but he couldn't hold on to probably the best power 13 in the game today. Nothing negative about that.

 Actually, that was just poor play by Damian. The Brumbies spread out their attackers, as Aussie teams tend to do, so they can target the space between defenders. Here they targeted Damian by engaging him and Kuridrani beating him cleanly on the outside because Damian went high instead of low. de Jongh would have gone low on him. It's a worry, because as 13 he would have to be the edge defender... can we trust him to seal off that edge with good lateral defence? If this incident was anything to go by, no. The space was just too great for de Jongh to account for. In these pull plays the absolute dream result is to have both defenders move inwards. Had de Jongh made his assigment second priority by moving in to cover Kuri, it would have increased the Brumbies options exponentially! It was simply a case of a man having to front up and do his job, Damian did not do his job, end of story.

 De Jongh never even attempt to do his duty - so blame De Allende for a De Jongh  bugger-up.  Typically dense as to be expected from you.  

Let's go over the facts again. It was a Stormers lineout, inside the 22, they lost. There was no prior defensive positioning by the Stormers....they were positioned for attack with de Jongh and Senatla very wide.

The Brumbies won the lineout and White passed straight to their 12 whio passed to Kuridrani. Kuridrani had a bit of space because the Stormers were deep on attack....but de Allende was on him....he was his man to take as the play unfolded.
He missed by going high on a big, fast man in space. He needed to go low. It's a lesson he has to learn. 
De Jongh had nothing to do with the missed tackle...it's Tokkie trying to shift the blame.

If de Jongh moved in Kuri would have had a 2 v 1 out wide. One pass and it's a guaranteed try. You have to trust your team mate to do his job, you can't be shadowed throughout the game. Peter tried that with Jacobs and it put enormous stress on our defence. Deans tried it with Cooper and it backfired in spectacular fashion. 

 Another load of tripe - the Stormers line-up was positioned as they would have been with the inside center facing the inside center and the outside center the outside center.  What you wrote here is typical.  The pass went to Toomua and De Allende had to go for him and not for Kuridrani - when he passed the ball the real next defender was De Jongh who did squat and De Allende then had to try and tackle from the inside after turning away from Toomua.   It was NOT DE Allende function to defend against TWO p layers while De Jongh was standing around outside of him.  
De Jongh had everything to do with the issue - his negligence caused an unacceptable situation to arise. 
De Allende had to go high in this case - stupedo - he had to run at pace to get to Kuridrani and tackle him from the side - making a low tackle nearly impossible.   
I would also have criticized De Allende for the missed tackle - but given the circumstances I thought he was put in a bad position having to defend against two players while De Jongh did squat.   I was not prepared to concoct a false story to discredit De Allende - I leave those kind of lies to you, Desert disaster and Cerdaunce.   

 UncleverMikas trusty rugby glasses. Note the milk bottle lenses:

Wrong again Tokkie....De Allende never even looked at Toomua. Why? Because Cat was covering that space. It's all a figment of your imagination Tokkie....Cat had Toomua....de Allende had to take Kuridrani....and he missed. Simple as that.

 Now Catrakillis was covering the inside center - another load of absolute BS.  The more you try and describe what happened in this case the more BS is invented by you to put all the blame on De Allende and absolve De Jongh.   This must be the worst effort on your part to deal with what happened in this case.  Every query about your interpretation is covered with a further load of BS on your part.  L ie is piled on lie - are you not ashamed of yourself by now?   

Poor old Tokkie seizes on any little thing to divert attention....now it's Cat he says. Nope, in the very first post on this string I point out Cat was aligned on Toomua....why? Because he was. De Allende was nowhere near Toomua, nor did he make one move to cover him....he was covered inside and outside.
De Allende was aligned to cover Kuridrani...and that was the only thing he tried to do.

 Balls - but just one question - who was De Jongh aligned up to cover - nobody?
Another thing - does in the game of rugby a flyhalf normally line up to cover an inside center in a game - the inside center have to line up to cover a no 13 etc.  This is what you are telling us in this case.    

I'm not telling you Tokkie....the video link is posted, the match time was 68.40. It's obvious to anybody with a grain of integrity.  

 Why not answer the following question:-
Another thing - does in the game of rugby a flyhalf normally line up to cover an inside center in a game - the inside center have to line up to cover a no 13 etc?

I want your advice on the above question since I want to e-mail it to the various franchises as a sound suggestion for them to follow in defensive strategy.    

Why not describe the video from your perspective. Tell me where Cat is, where the Stormers 20 is....when, if at all, De Allende moves towards Toomua. Whether De Allende was in a position to tackle Kuri....what the commentator said. I'm off to play golf, take your time.

 What about my question - why no answer?   I watched that video repeatedly and what you describe is absolute tripe.

 ROFLMAO!!!!!!

 

 Allende is an excellent defender and oaks who think otherwise need to think again and book an apppintment with an optician!!
I see ou cerudunce windpomp is back and so is comedy! Bwahahhahahahahaha

 Mozart - let me ask you again:-
"Another thing - does in the game of rugby a flyhalf normally line up to cover an inside center in a game - the inside center have to line up to cover a no 13 etc?"

I want your advice on the above question since I want to e-mail it to the various franchises as a sound suggestion for them to follow in defensive strategy.    

Why duck and dive to get away from the above critical question?

He is very susceptible head on and has shown vulnerability laterally. He defends like a lesser Sonny Bill, quite ironic given that Damian always reminded me more of a league player. He has his strengths, and I say we should play to those strengths, but he does have shortcomings, the same kind that saw him get dropped from the Boks last year! It would be utterly foolish to dismiss that, but stranger things have happened: namely Lambie... For six years! 

 Desert Disaster
Who are you talking about above in the Reds game - Fransie or whom?   The Stormers did not play the Reds this year - so when was the game you spoke about?  By the way - I still think you missed the boat as to the player run over by the Reds - it probably was Fransie, who in the game against the Reds missed 3 of the 5 tackle attempts he made for a missed tackle ratio of 37,5%.   
The person run over in the Cheetahs game was De Jongh - who made 1 tackle in the game and missed 2 for a miss tackle ratio of 66,67%.  In that game De Allende made 10 tackles missing 3 in a desperate bid to cover for the misses of De Jongh as well.  
The only player that was done flat out in the Sharks game was again Fransie - who was shrugged off by De Allende twice and ended up on the grass behind him.  In the said game De Allende did not miss a single tackle -  De Jongh attempted 5 tackles - but missed 3 of those for a missed tackle ratio of 60%.   A case of misidentification of players - or what?   
So what does that remind you of?   And back to normal with you - Lambie again.       

So Tokkie you are too chicken to interpret the video....probably wise to keep your head down you old clown. 

 Where can I find that famous video - when I looked at it in the past it was clear that you were BSting - but I will look at it again if I can find it. It was from that review that I asked some questions and made some statements and in the case of all questions you came up with interpretations that was absolute crap.   
 "Another thing - does in the game of rugby a flyhalf normally line up to cover an inside center in a game - the inside center have to line up to cover a no 13 etc?"
By the way your other co-BSter comrade is in trouble.   He accused De Allende of missing tackles in a match that never took place.    I think he may run for cover coming back with a different user name.   But then - that is how reliable the match interpretations of you, Desert Disaster and Ceradunce are.   Keep it up - it really is fun  responding to the three of you and catching you three with your pants on fire.     

 But then - that is how reliable the match interpretations of you, Desert Disaster and Ceradunce are.   Keep it up - it really is fun  responding to the three of you and catching you three with your pants on fire.    

Listen you stupid doos, I have not made a single comment on the game or the incident. Now p!ss off.

Reading comprehension Michael, it makes all the difference. You can't successfully attempt revisionist history in the same thread I'm posting in, especially when it's my post. 
You're getting too old for this Michael. You can't even keep track of what you are saying anymore. 

 Ceradunce
I apologize - but then you are too stupid to interpret anything happening on a rugby field - hence you adoration for Morne and Ouma Victoria.