ESPN vs Auge - Round 1

Argument: According to ESPN Lood missed 0 tackles. I say he missed a tackle on Isi, the Wallaby #8. You decide. 

dave 

AO is an habitual liar - you will get nowhere with the Idiot Speaker.  

dave 

AO is an habitual liar - you will get nowhere with the Idiot Speaker.  

Wrong again. At the point Lood misses, Louw and Nyakane have hands on Isi's back. He goes to ground as he has two Boks right on top of him. 

Successful Tackles: Louw and Trevor

Straight to ground you say, Dave? 4m on? If there was no one in front of him he would have pushed up off his knee and kept going.

The Boks don't tackle him? Now this is funny. They have their hands on him as he gains ground but nobody tackles him. You are too much Saffy! This reminds me of that JJ thread where he "wasn't" bounced in the tackle. 

The pic above captures the im mediate point of contact with a defender. The following shows Isi's body position before contact. He hunches into the contact point of Louw and Trevor. They get hands on him and bring him to ground. Lood dives in, making no impact in the attempted tackle.  

Missed tackle...unless Lood managed to hold onto the foot to effectively trip him, but not what I would call a tackle really....or he lost balance and fell all on his own...poor tackle attempt either way.

I thought this would be a good time to remind some punters as to what proper, completed tackles actually look like Courtesy of our much maligned midfield defense.

That hit on Foley though!!! Boomfa!!

Destination Fuct.

How many tackles made and how many missed.  Three pics is not conclusive proof.  And in some cases forwards make tackles which should have been handled by our midfield defenders.

Also it I clear that Pakie claims that Jean de Villiers lied about the mid-field defense problem.  Does he know better than De Villiers about what really happened?

No proof yet of his claim that ESPN stats said Steyn made no successful tackles in the 28 minutes he was ion the field of play - while Pakie claimed he made 2 tackles.   We all know Pakie clcaims he is always right and everyone else wrong - but please show us the proof Pakie.     

Yes, Pakie does know better. If Jean had to come here and try to back up his statement he would be routed. It's that simple. He made a bad call. Pakie proved it. It's best you learn to live with that, as you say, fact of life. 

"We all know Pakie clcaims he is always right and everyone else wrong"

Why don't you quote Pakie as claiming to know better than everyone. The floor is yours Mike von Clever. 

What a conceited bastard - too stupid to discuss rugby issues on site - both you Idiot Speakers yet you claim you know more about rugby than  De Villiers as well as Erasmus.    Yet you admire the worst coach of the decade and make up BS about how good he was.   

From what is attributed to Jean (I did not see it)...he said there were defensive lapses in midfield...he did not say the centers were responsible, did he? IMO, we got exposed in midfield when things got out of structure and we had to scramble on defence...our loosies were too slow to plug gaps when the centers were taken out of play...it only happened a few times, but still...

And some of the previous poor defensive accusations against DdA can also be tracked back to slow loosies...it is what it is, you can't have a perfect mix. Every time you choose physicality, you give up a bit of mobility and vice versa. 

"yet you claim you know more about rugby than  De Villiers as well as Erasmus."

Quote me. I dare you. 

"Yet you admire the worst coach of the decade and make up BS about how good he was."

Meyer has a 66% record. Coetzee has a 44% record. Rassie has a 53% record. Now explain to me how Meyer is the worst coach of the decade. Yes, making BS indeed. 

If you want conceited, look no further than your username. 

The definition of a tackle is not "to faintly brush against the skin or clothing of the opposition like a bashful zephyr". 

Lood did not bring Isi down. It's that simple Saffy. You are as desperate as Lügnerin. 

I described the tackle above. Isi hunching his shoulders going into contact in front of Louw is interpreted by you as Isi going down by a successful Lood tackle. You are plainly lying, or wrong.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A TACKLE

1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground .

Nice one Xavi. I'd say that ends the discussion. 

AO

I asked not about that one and tends to agree with you about completion of the tackle.  However, ESPN normally reviews the tackle stats - but for some reason  or another did not do so in this case. 

In any event making 13 tackles and technically missing 1 is still a top class performance for a lock.   A hell of a lot better than the other available locks.

However, I asked repeatedly for when the two "tackles"  Steyn made in the 29 minutes he was on the field occurred so did it happen or was it standard BS by one of our "experts"?      

On this I agree with Mike, 13 competed of 14 tackle attempts for a Lock forward is good effort .

Ou Mike, not that you have any grounds on which to make demands for evidence since you never present any yourself, but here are the two tackle involvements by Steyn I recalled from my live viewing of the game (and I have already provided the time stamps to you on a different thread when you asked 3 days ago).

Frame 1. Steyn hits HP, forcing a wayward offload that is gathered by Elstadt.

Frame 2. Steyn hits Faainga'a in tandem with Steph

Now how about that time stamp for Esterhuizen 3m away from the Kerevi break?

Tackle involvement does not mean tackles made as stated by you.   That is the difference.  In both cases tackles were made by other player and there was np completed tackles by Steyn.   

That is why the stories you advertise on this site I so laughable and I would say that Steyn was badly exposed in the case of the Foley try.  That is normal with him and was shown up repeatedly when he played Super rugby from 2013 to 2015.   

Fact is Mozart claimed that Steyn did not have an injury problem that limits his defensive abilities - but I phoned the Sharks office in Durban about it, but they assured me that he suffered from  knee pain but despite that limitation he can still play.  To be nasty - his excessive weight was the reason for the painful knee.      It limited his sideway movement in defense and  players can easily pass him on either side and his defense remained a problem as a result.  That is exactly what happened on Saturday and exactly why -

*   Plumtree said he was no center; and

*   Montpellier stopped using him at center or flyhalf and for the last year basically used him as stand-in full back.

I have seen  him missing tackles galore because of that deficiency.          

Tackle involvement does not mean tackles made as stated by you.   That is the difference.  In both cases tackles were made by other player and there was np completed tackles by Steyn.  

Yep, and therefore I am fine with ESPN's numbers in this case after reviewing the match. 

IF my auntie had balls she would have been my uncle.

No I a not going to watch the match again to find the time stamp

You can fast forward to 17:37 for the Kerevi break , no need to watch the whole match. Come on now.