Esterhozen has to be wondering what he has to do…

…to be respected. Here’s a summary of his match against Oz:

Metres 72…..most

Clean breaks 2…..second

Y

Defenders beaten 2…third

Offloads 2…..third

Tackles 9…..second

Missed tackles 1…..third

………..

The man was immense, if anybody deserved to be retained in the backline it’s Esterhuizen. And yet all one reads is Dud Allende is coming back. Why?

No no, he wasn't assertive. We need DDA burrowing head down at 5 seconds per meter.

Did you see this defensive play at 9:56? JOC carrying, Esterhuizen out of nowhere rushes him and dislodges the ball in the tackle, we kick ahead and Edwill gathers before being tackled into touch for a net gain of almost 50m, just off one piece of proactive defense. You simply won't see DDA execute like that - he'd hang back.

Once people have nailed their colours to the mast, no amount of evidence or stats will shift them.

They’ll defend DA to the death, even when Esterhuizen is clearly showing more dynamism and skill.

That’s the thing: Esterhuizen brings variety, he bends the line and looks for options, while DA too often just crashes it up like a one-dimensional tractor.

Yet some posters can’t see past the “established name” and reputation.

At least we know the truth and the numbers back it up. AE deserves his shot, plain and simple.

I see this in the article about the Springboks squad overhaul in the margin here at Ruckers, not sure who wrote it:

"The midfield could see Jesse Kriel and Damian de Allende pairing up again, hoping to tighten up a defense that was porous against the Australian attack."

Very problematic statement. First, Aus found space out wide outside our defensive line. When they punched through the middle it wasn't past the centers except for Wright getting through Kriel and Moodie. This is a clear insinuation that Esterhuizen was a problem on defense, which is the kind of pathetic journalism that perpetuates myths.

I saw the same misleading comment. Shaping the narrative or just flat out lying.

I was not impressed with Esterhuizen - he was ok but just does not have the assertion of de Allende which comes down to a lack of test experience

The game probably would have turned out differently if Pollard and de Allende had been there

Suffolk, Esterhuisen May lack DDA,s test experience, but for the first 20 minutes, he was exactly the player needed for that high tempo, wide game plan.

DDA excels in tighter, forward oriented setups. He wouldn’t have played that role like Esterhuisen did.

Rugby isn’t about swapping names, it’s about fitting the right player to the plan.

Disagree DA is as well equipped to play it wide if that is the instruction

The first 20 had very little to do with what AE did it was an all round contribution

But as Eddie Jones correctly pointed out, playing that high tempo is not sustainable for much longer than 20 min

What the Boks should have done was reign it in and play it tighter post the 20 which was the instruction according to Ox but the team ignored the instruction - hence my call out saying arrogance took over

I have a suggestion for Esterhuizen - develop the ability to play thinking rugby and not vanish from sight during matches. He started off looking good on Saturday and then turned into his normal game he always play on franchise level.

Hope his Springbok career and that of useless Mostert ends asap.

The game probably would have turned out differently if Pollard and de Allende had been there

The intercept pass was the turning point. That doesn't happen, we probably don't lose the game. That rattled the cages as the implosion over the following 9 minutes would suggest. So yeah, Pollard probably would have made a difference.

Suggestion for you Uncle, Work hard to keep every post without spelling mistakes and keep your lying BS to yourself!!

How on earth do you start the most fragile flyhalf in Bok history and not have backup on the bench? Especially when you are going up against a side that has just come off of playing a Lions series, ending on the ascendancy???

AE was epic on Saturday. He looks like easily the best 12 in WR. These idiots that still have there hopes pinned on DDA actually amaze me. Honestly, I don't read Mike's imaginings anymore and Dave is far too insecure to ever look at facts and alter his opinions based on new information.

Before the game on Saturday, we had 160 minutes of rugby to play until we go and play the toughest two games we've played in two years.

But we start with no 10 cover on the bench and then go out and try to play a style of rugby that there is not a snowball's chance in hell we'll employ in NZ. WHAT IS THE POINT OF DOING THAT?

Another wasted opportunity. More vital minutes down the drain.

...and as I told you boys, the ABs are gonna have us over a barrel next month.

I'm more convinced than ever that Rassie has drowned himself in his own Kool-Aid and completely lost the plot.

Bullshit was AE epic - anything but

It confirmed yet again that DA is the better 12

He is far more assertive than AE

Dave is insecure bwahaaahaaaaa - fucking idiot

Okay, Dave...let's ask chat GPT...

Query; does this pair seem like it's from a confident person or an insecure person. Justify your answer. Be objective.

Come up with your own material you pathetic twat

This is the post I used;

"Well Buttplug I guess I can take comfort from the fact that you read my posts. I don’t bother with your ignorant shit

Moz it does not surprise me at all with your pathetic attempt to discredit Rassie at every opportunity - so now the arrogance is all on him and not the players - how fucking childish

Seems you need schooling as per usual - with arrogance comes a drop in intensity and effective execution which is exactly what happened to the Boks after their sublime start

Dropped passes, misdirected passes, missed tackles, poor line outs

But according to you it’s all on Rassie - you are a joke"

ChatGPT response;

"This post comes across as defensive and combative, which often leans more toward insecurity than confidence.

Here’s why:

1. The heavy use of insults (“Buttplug,” “ignorant shit,” “pathetic,” “you are a joke”) suggests the writer feels attacked and needs to lash out rather than calmly asserting their point.
2. The long explanation about why the other person is wrong indicates they feel the need to prove themselves. A more confident person would state their point directly and move on.
3. The repeated emphasis on how the other person “needs schooling” or is “childish” is another attempt to dominate the exchange, which can come off as overcompensation.

That said, the writer does show conviction in their argument (about Rassie, the Boks, etc.), which signals confidence in their opinion. But the tone of personal attacks and emotional intensity makes it sound less like assured confidence and more like defensiveness rooted in insecurity."

Well, I did. I said you were insecure. That's my own "material".

Then I asked Chat what it thought...

...and it agrees

Big fucking YAWN

Big fucking YAWN

Plum, tell Chat GPT that was the response you got and see what it says :)

Good old Chat

Suggesting Evan Roos should move to inside centre shows rugby ignorance.

Roos is a natural No. 8: he’s built for explosive carries, dominant collisions, breakdown work, and back-row athleticism. His strengths are ball-carrying through contact, defensive presence, and dynamic power in tight and loose exchanges. Those are back-row attributes — not what you want from an inside centre.

An inside centre at Test level needs distribution skills, decision-making under pressure, defensive reading of backline structures, and a kicking option in modern systems. They must link the fly-half and outside backs, read defensive patterns, and often act as a secondary playmaker. While Roos has pace for a forward, he doesn’t have the rugby IQ, handling, or positional instincts required for 12.

It’s a bit like suggesting Pieter-Steph du Toit should play at outside centre — yes, they’re both mobile for their size, but the skillsets and responsibilities are worlds apart.

You should get the paid version, its better...

Why Evan Roos would make a good 12 in rugby...

1. Physical Profile

1. Roos has explosive pace, especially for a loose forward. His acceleration and top speed regularly trouble opposition defences in open play, which would translate well to the 12 channel where line breaks are crucial.
2. At around 1.90m and 110kg, he matches or even outweighs many international centres. His physicality would give his team a dominant gainline option in midfield, similar to players like Damian de Allende or Manu Tuilagi.

2. Ball Carrying & Contact Dominance

1. One of Roos’s standout attributes is his ability to win collisions and generate front-foot ball. Playing at 12 would allow him to consistently challenge defenders in the tight channels off 9 and 10.
2. He’s shown in Super Rugby and URC that he can absorb tackles and still get an offload away – a prized skill for an inside centre creating continuity.

3. Defensive Attributes

1. As a loose forward, Roos is already defensively robust, accustomed to tackling big forwards. Slotting him into the 12 role would make the midfield more physically imposing and harder to break through.
2. His breakdown work would also add value in the midfield, where centres increasingly compete for turnovers after dominant hits.

4. Skill Set Beyond Carrying

1. Roos has a surprisingly good handling game for a forward. He often links play in wider channels and demonstrates soft hands in offloading situations.
2. At 12, he could act as a secondary distributor, especially in a system that plays off dual playmakers.

5. Tactical Fit

1. Modern rugby often uses “power 12s” to bend defences and create space for outside backs. Roos fits this mould perfectly, similar to how coaches have experimented with back-rowers like Sonny Bill Williams (early career at 6 before shifting to 12) or Jean Deysel (occasionally trialed in midfield).
2. South African systems in particular value size and dominance in midfield – Roos could easily be moulded into a hybrid crash-ball/ball-playing inside centre.

? In short:

Evan Roos has the size, pace, physicality, and handling ability that would make him a natural inside centre if given time in the role. He’d bring gainline dominance, defensive solidity, and offloading threat, all of which are key to modern 12 play.

Now Dave...see this is why it's ethical to actually show the prompt you use. Because Chat will make any argument you want it to.

Hence my query on your massive insecurity was objective in that is asked...is this or is this not a psot created by an insecure person. That way Chat makes up its own mind and treats the matter objectively:

"Does this pair seem like it's from a confident person or an insecure person. Justify your answer. Be objective."

And, objectively, chat thinks you're an insecure nitwit

Just a pity Roos does not have the most important attributes for a 12 - rugby IQ of a 12 and positional instincts of a 12 - all acquired through years of playing in that position

Of course this obvious fact is way beyond you as you are so rugby naïve it’s embarrassing

Chat is a load of shit - it’s easily manipulated to say what you want to hear paid or unpaid

What form would Dud Allende’s superior assertiveness take Dave…..what exactly would he do beyond running into the first tackler and ending the phase.

Esterhuizen can do everything Dud can do better….reads the game way better….and isn’t even fully deployed yet….our runners, Kriel in particular, need to be there for offloads. And for his English club his left boot was frequently used….not sure our coaching staff have figured that out, but they are all over Dud’s ill timed and poorly exceuted grubbers..

Genius..

The Georgians won't know what the hell Dave is talking about.

Wrong Moz AE is not better than DA and certainly does not read the game better

Your take on DA only running into traffic and ending a phase is utter bullshit

Everythihg AE does at test level lacks assertion, he is playing like he is on trial which is understandable as he only lives off test scraps

For Quins he played with assertion as he was settled, comfortable and established. That is not the case at test level. Same applies to the likes of the du Preez twins, Roos etc

AE was always good enough to be our starting 12 but DA was preferred and I completely get that.

"Just a pity Roos does not have the most important attributes for a 12 - rugby IQ of a 12 and positional instincts of a 12 - all acquired through years of playing in that position"

Umm, how do you know that Roos doesn't have rugby IQ or positional instincts?

Um because it takes years of playing 12 to gain the positional instincts of the position

You have clearly not played rugby? Am I right?

"Um because it takes years of playing 12 to gain the positional instincts of the position "

It takes so long that DDA still hasn't learned.

Which again reinforces how little you know and explains a lot having clearly not played much rugby yourself