Fourie retires from Rugby

The following from News24:-

"Former Rugby World Cup winner Jaque Fourie has called time on his professional career for the second time after a series of niggles prevented him from featuring for Western Force.

The 35-year-old garnered 72 caps for South Africa and was a crucial part of the 2007 side which claimed the World Cup after defeating England 15-6 in the final in Paris.

Fourie’s impact was also decisive in 2009 when the Springboks overcame the British and Irish Lions 2-1 before the centre enjoyed a five-year stint in Japan with Kobelco Steelers from 2012 to 2017.

After leaving the Steelers, the midfielder announced his retirement from rugby but a year later he made a U-turn by taking on a dual role with the Force in Australia.

Despite intending to return to the field, coach Tim Sampson insists that injuries have prevented Fourie from featuring in the side.

“Jaque initially had the intent to play but not long after arriving he had a couple of niggles and just made a decision to call time on his career,” Sampson told the rugby.com.au website.

“It would've been great to get some game time out of him but he certainly fills in a lot at training and likes to think he's still got it but he's slowly beginning to be shown up by the lads.”

Fourie has been coaching the defence this season and Sampson says that the former centre has been having an impact in that role.

“He loves it, he's a guy that gives us a lot of energy and, if you look at his playing days, he was a key link man for the Springboks in that position as a defence captain in the backline and the guys really respond to Jaque,” he added:--

The headline reads it is his second retirement from rugby - which is somewhat dubious.   Fourie was not selected to play for the Springboks in 2012 -  but did play for them in 2013 and 2014.   His performance record in those two years were poor, but Meyer persisted with him.   Meyer also wanted him in the 2015 WC squad.   However, when the squad assembled in June 2015 Louw was in shocking physical condition (same as Fat Fransie) and even Meyer gave up on him.   

He went back to Japan and continued playing for them  up to the end of the previous season when his contract was not renewed - but he started negotiations with the Western Force already last year, but in any effect did not play for them and now announced his retirement from all forms of rugby.  So is it a second retirement - I doubt it very much.

Fourie in his prime was a very good center - but he spoiled his reputation by playing test rugby in 2013 and 2014.   Best wishes fo r his future.  

"...but did play for them in 2013 and 2014.   His performance record in those two years were poor..."

Oh for fu.ck sake, get over it you absolutely stupid cu.nt... Your continuous lies most specifically about those two years have been exposed time after time, over and over ad nauseam.

The team record for those two years... In that includes the pathetic EOYT after

Disgraceful words for one of the best Springboks of all time. The man retires and you have to use it as an opportunity to smear some mud. You couldn't even do some research, considering you have a poor memory. He never played test rugby in 2014. His very last test was against France in 2013. Real Bok fans know things like these. You also padded out the 2015 narrative with a lie. Please explain to me how a league that has the most end-to-end running in all of world rugby, with the fewest kicks, leads to "poor physical conditioning". I'd really love to hear that.

Now, onto the great man himself. Fourie was as good a Bok as you get. He always had the tenacity and courage to rise to the occasion and be that man when the chips were down. He scored many crucial tries, and sparked many comebacks. Who could forget that British Lions try in the corner that got us back into the game, with one eye, as he had been gouged in an earlier ruck. He was never appreciated under Peter, but made his way into the team regardless, as his quality could not be constrained. He scored 6 tries against Australia in 15 tests and 4 against New Zealand in 13 tests, with a career total of 32 in 72 tests. He ended his test career with an almost flawless showing on the 2013 EOYT, in which he made 100% of his tackles - the best overall performance by a 13 under Meyer and until present day . The Boks won every test in very dominant fashion. Clearly, he has left big shoes to fill.

Fourie was a rock on defence. He was, as you say, very intelligent. His ability to organise on the field was as good as anyone in the game. He was a lethal strike runner and opportunist. He ran beautiful lines, with tremendous timing. He had so many qualities you can't coach. In 2010 against New Zealand, he snuffed out 4 All Black tries with 3 interceptions and 1 pass disruption in the opening 25 minutes. We went on the win the game, almost nilling New Zealand. Watching his highlights brought back many memories; it frames perfectly the grim reality that we don't have anyone in the current Bok side who can be considered a strike runner. We truly have fallen on hard times. At least I can say I appreciated him when he was around, and didn't spend my time trying to bring him down. 

Lurker

Read properly what I said about Fourie - he was very good until 2011 and was below par in 2013 and  2014.   Factual as well.

That came from playing rugby geriatrics past their prime - something Meyer specialized in.

He was in such poor physical condition when reporting for the June 2015 camp that the consultants told Meyer they would not get him ready for the WC and Meyer was thus forced to send him packing.

The Trooth Fairy

The most stupid thing on site using match stats to prove what?   The thing took all the tests played since De Allende started in the Springbok team and then which tests they won or lost.   What bearing has that on De Allende?   Zero in fact.

So lets look at the tests De Allende started in:-

2014           =    2 played   -   2 won

2015          =    2 played   -   2 lost

2015 WC  =     7 played  -    6 won

2016         =     9 played  -    5 won

2017         =     1 played  -    1 lost

2018         =     2 played  -     2 won

So De Allende started in 23 tests of which the Springboks lost 7  - in other words the loss count was 22.2%..

Can you understand anything about rugby - dimness or shall I call you c u n  t?     

What did he do in those 21 tests? Who did they beat?

He has never beaten New Zealand or Australia. His only tries are against the USA, Ireland and Italy. All 3 of his tries. He has setup one try, against the USA in the world cup. He cost the Boks a try in the World Cup against New Zealand and 3 (almost 4) against Australia in 2015. He is yet to land an authorative tackle; c an't create anything either. 

Jaque thank you for your service, I watched you live many times including the 2nd BIL test where you and Morne saved us. A true Springbok great!

BokBF

I have strong feelings about players staying beyond their sell-bye dates.   Maybe one should just ignore such cases - but I am at least honest in what I wrote above.  

ditto for posters on this board

Lurker

OK - lets try and get the seven tests sorted out:-

Losses against AB's      =    3

Losses against Australia  =  2

Loss against Ireland        =   1

Loss against England       =   1

The SA record since 2012 against the AB's was atrocious - they only won 1 test out of 12 played.   Of thos De Allende was involved in 3 tests  all three lost. 

Now get it straight = nobody bar you Mozart and Pakie ever blamed De Alllende for the Barrett try and there was no experts, commentators or scribes who did blame him.   It really is time that the lie Mozart started about the try should stop = it is tiresome and I do not believe you and the other two has really been honest in the assessment and I do not buy the BS spread by you three.   Why do you and least that dumb prejudiced rubbish Mozart could not reduced evidence to the contrary to what is in this paragraph? . .   

I don't need the opinion of another person. I can evaluate the video myself. Ende. 

I also blame him for that try, another game where I was in the stand.

Now get it straight = nobody bar you Mozart and Pakie ever blamed De Alllende for the Barrett try

And right now I am more convinced than ever that we got it right. A home video of that try that I just found on Youtube shows exactly the defensive folly that DA committed. The quality is not that good so watch the video as well. Especially keep an eye on what Damian does in comparison to the rest of the defensive line. Link to the video lower down..

Screen 1: Aaron Smith is just gathering the loose ball. You can see the defensive line all lined up behind the ruck. Damian is circled in red, Pollard in blue.

Screen 2: Smith gets ready to pass. The line immediately shoots up in defense...everyone except Damian, who has hardly moved.

Screen 3: As Smith passes to Carter, Damian has not even progressed past the line of the ruck yet.

Screen 4: Look where Pollard is, pressuring Carter. Look where Damian is. He should by now be shooting up on Nonu and be more or less where I put the red X. Look at all the space Nonu has to attack into between him and Damian.

This is 100% conclusive. Damian fractured the defensive line by moving up too slowly and gave his man acres of space to get around him, draw in the wide defender and release the wing for the try.

Watch the video

Pakie, you nailed it first time. You've provided far more detail than the topic or your a dversaries deserved. 

You can call me a C U N T anytime you feel like it.

At least I'm not a lying C U N T like you.

And at least I am able to count

Listen dumb buggers - I asked for information of any real experts and added to that commentators and rugby writers to support your BS on that try.   You are too dim and prejudiced to be trusted to make a real assessment and all I got is demented hysteria and another set if BS photos, 

So keep on with the BS if you please - It is really funny how you regard yourself as top rugby experts.    You missed your careers - should have been the top evaluators for World Rugby and test coaches.   

As per normal you are a prejudiced idiot.  This is a real f#ck-up by being selective on which matches to be taken into account and which not.   

But then we are talking to the top world expect in rugby player evaluation and the most prejudiced one ever.  If he cannot have his way - he turned to lies and deception.

Which three games have I missed BSter?   Come now list them.   I recounted and found it to be 8 games - so the count is  34,78% loss percentage.   And De Allende did not play n the boggest disaster ever - the Japan loss in 2015.   

Let me hit the final nail into the dim idiot here.   He came in when Meyer's past it rugby geriatrics was gone for all money and useless - so he has to take the blame for their decline under a failed coach - succeeded by even a worse one.   Proper coaching and a proper game plan - which in fact there as non-existent - could have resulted in more wins.           

As per normal you are a prejudiced idiot.  This is a real f#ck-up by being selective on which matches to be taken into account and which not.   

But then we are talking to the top world expect in rugby player evaluation and the most prejudiced one ever.  If he cannot have his way - he turned to lies and deception.

Which three games have I missed BSter?   Come now list them.   I recounted and found it to be 8 games - so the count is  34,78% loss percentage.   And De Allende did not play n the boggest disaster ever - the Japan loss in 2015.   

Let me hit the final nail into the dim idiot here.   He came in when Meyer's past it rugby geriatrics was gone for all money and useless - so he has to take the blame for their decline under a failed coach - succeeded by even a worse one.   Proper coaching and a proper game plan - which in fact there as non-existent - could have resulted in more wins.           

Mozart

How many matches have Etzebeth started against Oz and NZ?   1 out of 12 under Meyer without adding the ones under Coetzee?   And the coun was pretty miserable against OZ as well.   So Etzebeth is useless as well.   And then we have your hero Fat Fransie to contend with.   What a biased BSter.

Mozart

How many matches have Etzebeth started against Oz and NZ?   1 out of 12 under Meyer without adding the ones under Coetzee?   And the coun was pretty miserable against OZ as well.   So Etzebeth is useless as well.   And then we have your hero Fat Fransie to contend with.   What a biased BSter.

Mozart

How many matches have Etzebeth started against Oz and NZ?   1 out of 12 under Meyer without adding the ones under Coetzee?   And the coun was pretty miserable against OZ as well.   So Etzebeth is useless as well.   And then we have your hero Fat Fransie to contend with.   What a biased BSter.

Mozart

How many matches have Etzebeth started against Oz and NZ?   1 out of 12 under Meyer without adding the ones under Coetzee?   And the coun was pretty miserable against OZ as well.   So Etzebeth is useless as well.   And then we have your hero Fat Fransie to contend with.   What a biased BSter.

J ust to help Mike with the count (red cancels out games DA did not start):

Thanks Pakie

I dod not include bench games in the list - as it dies not reflect the position fairly.  Backline players especially normally play very short periods in games and b the time the players get onto the field the match have already been lost or won and there is very little they can do about the situation. 

The inclusion of especially backline players are in fact unfair and statistically real BS,   The only way that can count is if not games are used to calculate the situation   - but minutes in fact played is taken into account.

Mozart has tried a Marius Jooste on us and that is dishonest as well.

I do not believe that the whole Trooth BS is actually of any value and I can only keep on wondering how many prejudiced BSters we actually have on site.    I know the lead in this is normally taken by Mozart the dishonest - and then supported by Ceradunce, Lurker, Trooth Fairy and you.   How do you fell about being amongst that lot - I would be ashamed as hell  about it if I were you.

I dod not include bench games in the list - as it dies not reflect the position fairly.

Neither did I. It is 10 losses as a starter .

How do you fell about being amongst that lot

Pretty good, thanks.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough Mike, because you appear to have misread.

The red numbers count the number of losing games DA started.

In other words 10, not 7 or 8 as you claimed.

I thought it was pretty clear and easy to read. Apparently not.

Mozart has tried a Marius Jooste on us and that is dishonest as well.

Sorry, I don't know what that means. He got the count right, you got it wrong.

"....the dim f#ck does not even know how to work out percentages."
"Let me help out -
Number of games lost divided by total number of games played  tines 100."

Wahahahaha!!!

Using your original lies....

Number of games lost = 7
total number of games played (as starter) = 23

7 / 23 = 0.3043

0.3043 multiplied with 100 = 30.43%

Damn!!! I followed all your steps so nicely and I still don't get 22.2%

Or does "tines" work different from multiplication????

Fact is  worked it out at   57-57 % wins and not 51% as the dumb thing wrote above.

He wrote 56.5%, not 51%.

I have to produce a quote from someone else saying what I said was right? That's unbelievably ignorant. I don't spend my time collecting quotes from people, and I don't refer to any one person as a God figure. What you are saying reminds me of those who like to 'talk science', yet can't. So they turn it into a battle of who has the most studies. They never critique those studies, or take the time to understand the scientific validity of those studies. Whoever has the most wins. In like manner you demand that we turn this into a quote collecting competition, which would ultimately prove nothing. As stated, I evaluate film independently, I think for myself and am willing to defend my position on my own. Your defence of Damian has been so atrocious that I recommend your best course of action is to stop trying to defend him. I'm sure he'd appreciate it were he made aware of t he horrors you've spawned on here! 

Arrogance it is not because there were no expert ever confirming the BS Mozart started on his own and you supported it based on rank idiocy or prejudice.   

You think for yourself - I doubt it very much since you make statements based on zero insight in what actually happened and made your own dream up as to what the coaching manual say about aspects.