Fact check on Mallett

The Mallett theory is the Stormers were told at half time to retain possession, and they won the match because of ball in hand rugby. Nothing could be further from the truth with regard to almost every point he made. Here are the relevant facts: . Minute 40....the Stormers boot the ball straight down the middle with no intent to recover it. . Minute 44 ....Kolisi tries to kick ahead, but skews it into touch . Minute 48....Duvenhage kicks it straight down the middle . Minute 51....Kolbe intercepts and kicks ahead, Leyds regathers and offloads brilliantly to Marais for a try. . Minute 53 ....whole bunch of phase play by Stormers, no gain, ball turned over. . Minute 54.....more phase play with no gain, leading to a handling error....Chiefs ball try by Louw a few phases later. . Minute 59....Du Preez produces a duplicate kick to the 1st half kick to the corner. This time gets into touch, turnover ball, Duvenhage knocks on in the act of almost scoring. . Minute 62 .....Viljoen kicks rolling ball into touch in the 22, lots of Stormers pressure after ball turned over. . Minute 65 ...Du Preez kicks directly into touch . Minute 65/66 ....Lots of forward phase yielding the only ball in hand result of the half, a penalty for a high tackle. . Minute 69...Leyds ends another ball in hand series, conceding a penalty. . Minute 78....Phillips a long kick down the touchline. . Minute 79...Another Phillips kick . Minute 80...Game ends with Phillips kicking into touch . *********** . Now the summary. Ball in hand produced nothing in the second half....zero, nada, niks. In fact most of the Chiefs attacks including the Louw try came from sterile phase play being turned over. . The Stormers made almost exactly the same set of kicks in the second half they did in the first...... they were very effective. . The only dangerous play by the Stormers came from kicks ahead, turnovers and kicks into touch where the Stormers managed to pilfer the ball....including the Marais try which included both elements....turnover and kick ahead. . This match is being enshrined as an example of ball in hand rugby winning out over sterile kicking. It was exactly the opposite....almost every good thing the Stormers did came from a kick or the effects of the rush defence. But they did attack superbly off turnovers. . Mallett is unfotunately a sentimental chap, who can't an.alyse for toffee. But if we start to believe this junk our teams will lose the plot.

Now, now Dr Mozzzzz I fear you are trying to undermine Mallet for some reason!

The reason is an aversion to rubbish.

Mallet lost all his credibility when he dropped Gary T before the WC.
He does not need any assistance to be discredited he is a master of doing it himself.
Since admitting that he was wrong to omit Gary T from the squad but his error played a major part in the Springboks performance at that WC.
The whisper in rugby circles is that he wished to be hailed as the great coach who propelled the Springboks to glory at the WC but he failed for one reason.....he omitted the real leader and captain the one and only GARY T.  
 

Aversion to rubbish - then you must realize the strong aversion there is to the junk Mong 1 writes on this site.   He is brainless and does not realize that aimless and inaccurate kicking is an abomination.   
For Mong 1 kicking is the only thing in games that count.   Other than defense  kicking is the only requirement for backline players and he has a mania about that.
 What is written above is his normal junk without quality evaluation of the kicks.   The Mong is unable to do that and his assumption is idiotic.  


     

 Well, Arthur, Mallet made some mistakes, but we got booted out of that RWC by Larkam's first and only drop goal in test rugby...in extra time to boot....aaand Oz went on to win the 99 RWC...aaand we beat the Allblacks for the Bronze. Mallet has his faults, but he still have a very good rugby brain and knows the game better than most. He made an error in judgement by dropping Teichman, but he has realized and conceded it. All credibility lost...nah, I think not. As South Africans we tend to discard people too soon.

Actually Draad in his final year Mallett won 3 and lost 5.....not much better than Coetzee. But that's not the point. He is a typical critic sitting on the sidelines sniping at his successors. As for his theories I find him very much a fad thinker. This piece was a good example....hype for the new popular idea with zero connection to the facts.

 The fact is that I believe more in what Mallett writes than the junk Mon g 1 produces on the site.   When it comes to facts you are known to distort it beyond recognition to serve idiotic arguments you come up with.
At least from a lousy coach Mallett matured and realized that adjustment in our rugby is necessary - you - knowing nothing about the game got stuck in past eras and have not shown any intelligence on this site. 
In the meantime you do not mind lying as well.  The Springboks won 17 tests in a row  - 15 with Mallet as coach basically with the squad put together by Carel du Plessis.   That was not the record you gave him - so liar caught out again.   
Everything other than kicking is a fad thinker in the Mong's books - but then he is a rugby illiterate - so what else is new.  
  

 The fact is that I believe more in what Mallett writes than the junk Mon g 1 produces on the site.   When it comes to facts you are known to distort it beyond recognition to serve idiotic arguments you come up with.
At least from a lousy coach Mallett matured and realized that adjustment in our rugby is necessary - you - knowing nothing about the game got stuck in past eras and have not shown any intelligence on this site. 
In the meantime you do not mind lying as well.  The Springboks won 17 tests in a row  - 15 with Mallet as coach basically with the squad put together by Carel du Plessis.   That was not the record you gave him - so liar caught out again.   
Everything other than kicking is a fad thinker in the Mong's books - but then he is a rugby illiterate - so what else is new.  
  

 True Moz, but in his final year they were trying to get rid of him and he did not lose against any team we haven't lost to before. I'm not saying he's the answer to anything. I was saying he didn't lose all credibility by axing Gary.

Draad I'm afraid Mallett is not somebody I respect. Hell look at his tactics in the WC, all he did was set up Jannie de Beer for the drop. It worked against England, but he never even adjusted the approach for the Oz semi. Surely he should have anticipated that Oz would prep and they did giving Jannie no time.....why not fake with the drop, de Beer drew all the defence. It was sad seeing the Boks being booed at Twickenham, and then for him to suddenly be the open rugby prophet is a bit rich.

 If you do not respect him - why do you quote Mallett comments when he seems to support your ideas.   So is that respect comments real and the answer is no,   It merely represent a fool who was  caught in his own BS - I have lost count where he was exposed as a fraud because of deficient rugby knowledge with an absolute prejudice thrown in.
The conceit knows no bounds - a regular blowhard in evidence,

 I quote him both ways.....whether he says something I agree with and often when I totally disagree with him. Even in your case I have from time to time said I agree with a point you made. Sadly this happens rarely because you are such a shallow thinker.

 Rather a shallow thinker than no thinker at all.   There has not been the lightest indication that you really think about rugby other than using your untemp ered prejudice to write tripe on this site. 

 The Mong gave a list of kicks made in the second half without evaluate the quality of the kicks.   However, as kicking is an alternative and an essential part of the game - what counts are the quality of the kicks - not the number of kicks made.
Minute 40 :   How far ahead of the players was the kick - was effective follow-up possible?
Minute 44 :   Found touch - further comment not necessary.
Minute 48 :   Same scenario as minute 40.
Minute 51 :   The Chiefs players were all in the attacking line - nobody was in the back to cover a kick ahead after an intercept.  That was what is always regarded as a strategic kick. 
Minute 59 :   Again the Chiefs players were not covering the kick because they were in the defensive line.  A strategic kick that found them out of position and found touch.   Nothing comparable/duplicate  to the BS kicks in the first half.
Minute 62 :   Excellent kick by Viljoen
Minutes 78, 79 and 80 were kicks to keep the Chiefs in their own half and the last kick was to end the game after the game end was signaled.  
There was only nine kicks made during the second half - all of better quality that the BS kicks in the first half.   Keeping the ball in hand does not represent handover of possession like kicking way too often leads to ball possession handovers.   In virtually all cases the opposition is under pressure with a ball in hand game.
But the Mong cannot think at all.   For him the answer was to kick regardless of the potential and often enough certain handover of ball possession to the opposition.    He does not realize that handing over possession to the opposition on a platter through kicking is  a recipe for disaster.  
 



 

 That offload/pass from the ground though. Had me jumping off the sofa and raising some eyebrows in my house. 
Moz I think that even the most knowledgeable of punters get swept away with the big or telling moments in games and tend to deliver their opinion along those lines. 
For example, there was a game a while back against OZ where Pollard kicked badly twice. The first kick was right at the start of the game and the other was during a big moment. Every other kick from him that day was spot on.  
Mallet, Naas and everyone on the site spoke about how badly he kicked, when in reality he actually had a good game with the boot. 
So yep the Stormers did kick just as much in the second half but all the interceptions, line breaks and rumbling forward play drowned those kicks out in the memory. The same reason that we have to stop to remind ourselves just how much the ABs actually kick. 
I tend not to pay too much atte took to post match assessments that go beyond specific plays or tries. If interested, I'll do as you did here and rewatch the game more closely. Funny how much he one notices on a second viewing.
PS I see Mike is no longer ignoring you. 

 Plum
The Stormers made only 9 kicks during the whole second half - three of those were in the last two minutes when the game was basically over and the result beyond dispute.  Three of the others were excellent strategic kicks putting the Chiefs under massive pressure.  Of the remaining three none could be regarded as aimless since the recipient was under pressure when he caught the ball.
None of the nine kicks could be compared to the two disastrous kicks in the first half and that was a positive.   I am never against kicking  - what I abhor is poor and aimless kicking made for the sake of kicking alone.   There is no place for such kicking in games.   Where kicking allows only for handing over of possession to opposing teams it is a serious breach of what kicking should be about.  
Insofar as the ball in hand issue is concerned I started a thread on the issue and am convinced that the win of the Stormers can largely be attributed to that situation in the second half.   In summary the Stormers won the game because they did not allow the Chiefs to get easy turnovers from poor kicks and in maul situations,  while making sure that mistakes in ball-handling are minimized.   The Chiefs can only play their game plan if they have sufficient balls to play with - and in the second half it was not the case.
I responded to some Mozart messages because they were totally misleading and inaccurate and that should not be allowed to be uncontested.         

Plum, I used to do a thing I called the mozcroscope, where I looked at the game in a series of time stamp incidents. It's instructive, particularly when you focus on a particular player. With your an.alytical bent you might enjoy the exercise. . As for Mike it took him 5 hours to break his stated rule, I never expected it to last.

 Your last morzoscope was so falsified that nobody could believe the junk you wrote.    It  think it was in the Ellispark Test in 2013 and have not forgotten how it was pulled apart for falsified interpretation that it really was a farce. 
The story was it cover up all mishaps during the game by your heroes and blamed everyone else for the loss.   Morne's missed tackles were ignored - even though he contributed to two AB tries.  The missed tackle of Alberts on Reid which preceded the AB's first try was glossed over as non-occurrence with no impact on the game.  Same with a shocking poor decision of Morne seconds before the halftime whistle was set to end the first half and Morne decided to pass the ball in his own 22 instead of simply making a relieving kick.  Another try was scored as a result deep into what was supposed to be halftime.  
Then there was a number of other occurrences that was also falsified beyond belief.  Plum your are lucky you escaped the Morzoscopes - you would die laughing.  

So Fantasy Flop how did you do this week.......bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!

 Bad - because two players I selected after team announcement has not played.

When you say bad.....how bad?

 Lol dh!t lol, I love this place....my opinion on the 2 kicks in question: the one was rather good, but 2 slipped tackles backfired badly. The other one was bad, but damage could have been contained with a good tackle, but the defense failed. There might have been some similar kicks in the first half, without damage. The Stormers ajusted their kicking in the second half, and got better results. That's what impressed me most of the Stormers this year. They seem to be able to make ajustments in their game plan. They adapt to the opposition and find a way to win. Figure out what works and what doesn't. This was absent in previous years.

 Actuallly there were two almost exactly similar kicks by Du Preez and Duvenage in the second half.....but by a bit of luck both bounced out. . And the half time try came directly from another similar rolling kick to the corner. That kick is never mentioned.

Moz, I'll have to watch again, but both  of THOSE 2 kicks felt wrong to me as it took place...as they were kicked. I never got that pending doom feeling after a kick in the second half. I must also mention that at some stage, close to the middle of the second, something shifted. I sensed a bit of panic by the Chiefs. They started running at all cost and ran where they should bave kicked. I think they started chasing the game too soon. Can't put my finger on it, but I felt the Stormers started to believe and the Chiefs started to doubt and they made some errors. The SP try off the Leyds back pop lass was legendary. I went a bit ape. Memorable match.

Sure, I have time stamped everything to within a minute so it should be easy. . I'm pretty convinced the rush defence or it's new PC version ....line speed....is the key. The Stormers were very disruptive by being in their space and the turnovers/interceptions flowed from that. I think that's what kills the Lions as well, so it will be interesting to see if the Stormers can make it work again on Saturday......line speed is the right antidote to the offloading game.

 The two kicks were dismal and fact is the handover kicks after halftime did not occur saving the Stormers from defeat.  All the gloss over and "lucky" is BS of the first order. 
Still no comment on tries scored - just defense and kicking commented about - but let us  not forget - you regard defense and kicking as the only role of any SA backline - try scoring is a deadly sin and making BS kicks as the holy grail.