MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 00:34#1
Three times Etzebeth took lineout balls Lomp called on himself.....which is fair recompense for Lomp refusing to call Eben's number in the WC. Etzebeth took every one of his balls. Stephanie was stripped twice by Lomp and in turn took 3 balls away from other feeble Cheetahs jumpers.
Conclusion? Etzebeth is our most secure lineout option, but neither Lomp nor Stephanie have a clue calling the lineout.
In the scrums things went both ways. But when the Cheetahs had Marais on the park and 8 forwards on the park, they dominated. Marais monstered Koch.....and he turned Malherbe sideways and flushed him down the tunnel. Later when Marais was off, against weaker opposition Malherbe had a better scrum. Same old, same old....dominant against weaker props, vulnerable against good looseheads.
Schalk was superb, Eben was superb, Stephanie had some good moments when not facing Lomp. Lomp was pretty poor, and undisciplined....an ugly game, but a good one to win.
PLPlum
Captain21,007 posts
06 Mar 2016, 01:37#2
I agree Moz. Eben is currently better than Lood. But let's not forget that he has close to 50 Bok caps. The two of them are the Bok 4 & 5 for years to come and it's probably a good idea to appreciate the fact that they could both stroll into most other other national teams. Lood will improve. You can't deny that he had a good WC...especially. Considering how inexperienced he is. Right?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 02:09#3
He had a good WC pool sequence....Scotland, Samoa, Japan, USA. But those aren't tough packs. He was nowhere against Wales. And the Lomp led Cheetahs lineout today failed much as the Lomp led Bok lineout failed against NZ.
To be honest I'm not totally persuaded by Lomp, but nor am I convinced he isn't going to make it....only that to date he has been over hyped.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 07:31#4
Mozart
You are not doing yourself a favour by misinterpretation yet again. The Cheetahs forwards did surprisingly well against both the Stormers and the match was only won at the end. They were led by De Jager and the fact is that the forwards of the Cheetahs in fact dominated the Stormers at times.
I was much more worried about another aspect of Stormers play and that is the way Francois Venter dominated De Jongh at 12. The latter was in fact a weak link in the Stormers backline. De Jongh is not a 12 and he was ineffective in defense too. Fact is the Stormers should hope for an early return of De Allende - without him they are going to struggle against other teams.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
06 Mar 2016, 08:41#5
Dr Moz history shows you struggle appreciating good lock play. take it from Beeno, the one who "knows agood lock when he sees one" that Lood is the deal.
Eben is by some distance the worlds best lock. Delusional kiwis may sound off about retadlick but he is not to be mentioned in the same breath as Eben.
06 Mar 2016, 09:31#6
Mozart has mouthed off before about Pieter Steff Du Toit ... so he'll continue till thine kingdom comes ... all in an attempt to save face.
There is nothing that PSDT could ever do that would have Mozart give him a just and fair review.
Accept it.
We saw how he went on and on about the useless Matfield and Morne Steyn and even though he was shown up as ignorant ... he persists to this day.
The man's a fool.
Time to dismiss the majority of his posts as hogwash ... I do!!
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 09:40#7
Mozart
Now to the Marais - Malherbe issue you are getting i t wrong again. When Malherbe came on the first scrum with Marais on resulted in a penalty for the Stormers. You are always tending to distort issues and all that to support your distorted view if some players.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 18:29#8
No I didn't get it wrong. In the first scrum against Marais the Cheetahs pack as a whole, playing 7 against 8, got shunted back. In the second scrum Marais dominated Malherbe, turned him inside and flushed him down the tunnel.
As for Stephanie, Lomp took his ball twice....but Etzebeth took Lomps ball three times.
I know it's hard to accept simple facts when you have fantasies on the brain....but Etzebeth is in a different league to Lomp or Stephanie....and Malherbe will be exploited by power looseheads. Blat her as much as you like.....yesterday proved my points again.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 18:43#9
Mozart
There is a threat dealing with the game and coach's viewpoint on the game. You are not looking at the game objectively and makes out that the Cheetahs forwards and in this particular case De Jager was their weak link - which is hogwash. They were very competitive and that was just not possible if De Jager was poor.
The Stormers did not play well enough and the real weak links in the team was Burger and De Jongh. That would be extra hard for you to stomach I am afraid. Burger gavce away penalties and did not defend well - De Jongh was plain and simple useless. Burger looked tired and unenthusiastic - he reminded me of what he was in the Japan test in the WC last year.
The center combination was totally over-shadowed by the Small-Smith and Venter combination. The Sharks will destroy the Stormers on Saturday unless the Stormers change theirr loosie set-up and get the center situation corrected.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 18:57#10
Hahaha.....obvious Tokkie. Too obvious... if the facts don't suit your theory, change the subject by attacking other players. Lomp was dominated by Etzebeth....Malherbe was dominated by Marais....case closed
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 20:51#11
The first scrum involving Malherbe and Marais resulted in a penalty for the Stormers, but that is conveniently was forgotten by you - so how can we give credit to your fulminations?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 21:15#12
Not forgotten just put in context...7 vs 8. The Cheetahs scrum was down to 7 because Lomp who was clearly frustrated tried to take off poor Stephanie's head.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 16:33#14
Dave
Won't help - prejudice will dictate otherwise.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 16:42#15
Etzebeth lost zero lineout balls...Steph lost 2 and Lomp lost 4. Present all the facts and the picture becomes clearer.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 17:43#17
Utter nonsense. Lomp got the card because he was frustrated and humiliated....there's your tell. I have never seen a Bok lock lose 3 throws to him in a row...it was epic.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 18:38#19
Okay, you don't think a lineout jumper has to adjust to the ball. Let's accept that bit of imbecility. What player calling the lineouts calls the same throw three times in a row when he keeps losing the ball? What genius is that?
Every commentator accepts the fact Etzebeth outplayed Lomp....but you can't even stretch to that obvious conclusion. Terminally locked into your own positions,
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 19:57#21
From the Simon said column in SARugbymag....not a single commentator?
" It hasn't taken long for Eben Etzebeth and Pieter-Steph du Toit to form a potent locking partnership at the Cape franchise. Against the Bulls in round one, the Stormers won 18 of their 19 lineouts, with Etzebeth stealing three of the Bulls' throw-ins. A week later and Etzebeth poached four of the Cheetahs' feeds, including three in a row during the first half, while Du Toit and 20-year-old replacement lock JD Schickerling stole another four in the second half. The Stormers' jumpers caused Cheetahs kingpin Lood de Jager – the man who called the Boks' lineouts at last year's World Cup – much frustration, which was evident when he lost his composure in the 48th minute, with a high tackle on Du Toit resulting in a yellow card."
Wrong again...Lomp was dominated, just as he was by the ABs at the RWC.....game, set and match.
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
07 Mar 2016, 20:24#22
Line-out success is brought about mainly due to the synergy between the hooker, 2 locks and one or 2 loosies, with the locks spearheading the proceedings. It was evident the the Stormers totally dominated the line outs against both the Bools and the Cheaters.. . It was also clear to see the frustration of Lood at being totally unable to do anything about it.
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
07 Mar 2016, 20:33#23
PS, it's highly unlikely that such dominance was brought about by a single player. It was a good team effort and the lineout team should share the glory...forward coach included.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 20:39#24
I buy the coach. But if you look at those lineouts Eben poached off Lomp, he was fully committed, read the throw and got in the air before Lomp. He then very athletically slapped the ball to the Stormers. I give him 80% of the credit. As for the blame, call it 50/50 between the hooker and Lomp on the first throw. But by the third throw, given Lomp was calling the lineouts he should have adjusted....Lomp gets most of the blame after the first throw.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
07 Mar 2016, 21:54#25
Well Moz for a start Lood stood at 4 in the line-outs opposite PSDT, unlike Etzebeth who was at 2 in the line-outs opposite Wegner......so any balls Etzebeth stole, were off Wegner. PSDT and Etzebeth stole 3, Lood stole 2 according to the stats so good old Simon seems to be speaking out his arse.....much like is mind reading assertion that Lood conceded a card out of frustration......what a load of horse shit
Lood was outstanding against NZ in the semi, completely outplaying his opposite number Whitelock who never gained a single metre all game and provided nothing of significance in the line-outs......you are bullshitting.
Etzebeth stole no ball off Lood for the simple reason they never opposed eachother. This fact in itself makes a mockery of this whole post. Eben is a 4, Lood a 5, his direct line-out opponent being PSDT.
But as I pointed out, if a line-out ball is tapped by an opposition player, slightly in front of you it means the trajectory of the throw was poor. If your lock jumps well, then your hooker should find his target. The issue arises when both locks go up together and the opposition lock takes your ball off you - in such an instance you as a lock are beaten by your opposite number.
This never happened.... the steals by both sides were taps
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 23:13#26
He stole four balls off Lomp for the simple reason that he took the balls and they were called for Lomp....case closed.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
07 Mar 2016, 23:48#27
Ah ok so Lood makes the call for the ball to go to Wegner at 2, Eben gets a hand on it because of a poor throw to Wegner and that is Lood 's fault.
Geez Moz...no man
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2016, 00:00#28
See Dave that's your problem, you don't demand performance, you peddle excuses. Lomp is the Springbok lock who called the lineouts in the WC....but he couldn't find a formula to avoid 8 lineout steals off the Cheetahs ? They lost more than a third of their lineouts. The Stormers also lost 3, but only because Lomp actually managed to out jump Stephanie.
Unacceptable and frankly incompetent on the part of Lomp and Stephanie. If Victor had ever been that piss poor we would never have heard the end of it. Of course he never was.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
08 Mar 2016, 00:08#29
What utter rubbish. The player making the line out calls cannot be blamed for poor throws or his lock partner or flanker losing the ball....so in effect you want to punish him for the sins of others.
What the hell has PSDT got to do with it. The only thing Matfield in his prime had over Lood and PSDT was line out work and effecting open field tackles. Vic has never reflected the physicality these two youngsters bring to the game both with ball in hand or defensively.
Who would I choose aged 23 - Lood, PSDT or Vic....give me Lood and PSDT anyday
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2016, 01:32#30
But it wasn't his lock partner losing the balls....four of those seven losses were intended for Lomp.
And everybody accepts Matfield is no longer in the mix. The questions now revolve around our best lock combination and based on Saturday's evidence we don't have a natural replacement for Victor at 5. Lomp is not a number 5 lock, and the top international locks are going to have Stephanie for breakfast.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
08 Mar 2016, 09:58#31
Oh what utter rubbish. Lood was by some distance the best lock at the WC playing 5. He has far more to offer than Vic ever had purely because he is both an athlete and is built for the role.
Lood only lost 3 balls he stole 2...pretty much squares that up.
Matfield was one of the big reasons the Boks have failed to impress in the last 18 months. He was a physical liability in the side.
In Lood and PSDT we have two players who have the skills and size to be better than Vic ever was...that's how good they are.
Etzebeth was the best of the 3 on Saturday but only by a tiny margin...very little to choose between them all. Etzebeth is the physical freak that will always give him the slight edge.
Never have we ever had the depth of locks as we do now. Not even close. The best we had behind Bakkies and Vic were the likes of Muller and co who was as average as they come.
Bakkies and Vic were great but Etzebeth is better than Bakkies ever was and Lood and PSDT have more to offer than Vic did purely from a physical stand point.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Mar 2016, 12:01#32
Dave
Mozart is on the false info campaign trail as per normal. I watched the game again and the outcome was in doubt until the last few minutes of the game when the Stormers got the upper hand. De Jager was a key in the Cheetahs forward performance issue and Mozart is up against facts again. There was preciously little between the two no 5's on Saturday, but I give Du Toit the edge because of the yellow card.
Du Toit was in fact the soundest line out player of the lot. Etzebeth took some line-out balls on opposition throw-in by slapping the ball back - Du Toit took them in both hands and made sure of a proper passing back of the balls.
On average Etzebeth was by some distance the best lock in Round 2. The other two top candidates were Du Toit and De Jager - not one of the Aussie or NZ locks feature in that category.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2016, 17:02#34
Du Toit was not 'the soundest lineout player of the lot'. Etzebeth was...he won all his own balls and three off Lomp. Lomp in turn out jumped Stephanie twice....man on man.
I know you fellows want your own facts, but those are the real ones.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
08 Mar 2016, 17:10#35
Etzebeth got nowhere near any ball of Loods.....for the simple reason Lood was at 4 and Eben at 2.....hellloooooooooooooooooooooo
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Mar 2016, 17:11#36
How the hell could Etzebeth won balls of De Jager when he was in front of the line-out at 4 and De Jager in the middle opposite Du Toit. The player playing opposite Etzebeth in the line-out was Wegner - not De Jager. So Etzebeth was taking bal ls from Wegner - not from De Jager.
Please - you are accusing others of distorting facts - but you are in fact distorting the facts.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2016, 17:14#37
So Lomp was way up high in the air, supported by his lifter and all the other Cheeters were on the deck, because he was checking the weather? You are not even a good liar Dave, but you are a persistent one.
Etzebeth cut Lomp down to size, and the self centered twerp then tried to take Stephanie's head off he was so frustrated.
Complete dominance.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
08 Mar 2016, 17:20#39
No explanation how De Jager faced both Etzebeth and Du Toit together in line-outs and how the ball was taken from him by Etzebeth. Not very clever - that one.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2016, 17:34#40
Etzebeth stole 3 balls thrown to Lomp....de Jäger stole 2 balls thrown to Stephanie. The deniers in panic.
