CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 01:46#2
Mozart
Steyn started off very well - with his role in the Sithole try. Thereafter he started going down in performance as is evident in his missed tackle on Slade before the latter scored. His kicking game also gradually deteriorated and ended up with a penalty kick not finding touch - after which he was replaced. I would say in general he had a very average game and deserve a rating of not more than about 6,5/19.
The role of the Springboks were also spotty. Some like Bismarck and Beast was very good - Jannie tried to beat his previous penalty count in previous games. Did Alberts actually play? If he did play - he did an excellent job of doing squat in the game.
Jordaan's tackle stats were 8 made - 2 missed. Steyns were 6 made - 3 missed. Who got run over worse - I wonder? At leasty no tries were scored after Jordaan's missed tackle.
As per normal your assessment of players were bullshit and that is a fact. That is so because you are clueless on rugby performance assessment. The reason is your whole assessment center around one incident in a game - for the rest you are lost completely. The players who played a major role in the Sharks win was Reinach and Jordaan. Jordaan set up the miracle try by Cooper which clinched the match.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 02:00#3
Mozart
Now for the other games.
Like the case of the Sharks you are expert in missing out major things in assessment.
Cheetahs Game
" pity he (Brussow) put his team at risk by getting carded. Nice mention of that one here - but you left out the carding of Alberts. What is the difference?
You obviously left out the fact that Goosen scored a try as well as that massive drop kick at the end of the game.
Storners Game
De Jongh's try was created for him by De Allende. By creating space for Jordaan it was easy for him to score the try. He made one line break beating 2 defenders - but that was it. De Jongh's tackling was again poor and he gave away a penalty as well. Really just about a 6.5/10 performance.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 02:20#4
As I have frequently pointed out to you, there is a difference between missing a tackle and being unable to make tackles on big men...Jordaans problem. As for missing Goosens try ...what part of "take in the air" escapes you?
Then the difference between Alberts penalty and that of Brussouw is that Brussouws served no purpose. Alberts was trying to slow things down, something the Saders did all game....the write up on 365 points this out. Read it.
De Jongh was fine today, not great, but he had relatively few runs.
As for Reinach he certainly executed the try brilliantly....his scrum half play was poor. Jordaan did nothing all game and that one metre dart before the try was just a little more than nothing. He didn't set Cooper up....Cooper did all the work.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 02:38#5
Mozart
It always s is funny to see your assessment of players - first of all because you do zero about rugby - and secondly because you are so prejudiced in favour of some players that you come up with the most ridiculous statements.
Brussow played a massive role in the Cheetahs game - Alberts did bugger-all in the Sharks game. For your benefit I will quote there stats for you.
Brussow0/000/3/114013008/01/021/0
Alberts0/000/1/1000007/11/011/0
"Then the difference between Alberts penalty and that of Brussouw is that Brussouws served no purpose. Alberts was trying to slow things down, something the Saders did all game." Please explain - I definitely need more jokes from you.
Just for your info. There were at least 4 players blocking Jordaan in that last try case and he for through them - laid back the ball and created the try opportunity.
And your explanation of missed tackles is a joke in bad taste - the worst miss by a mile was the Slade miss of Steyn.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 02:49#6
Straight from the match report: on Rugby365
" Then referee Rohan Hoffmann decide that the Sharks should pay he price for an offence the Crusaders committed throughout the game - sending Willem Alberts to the sin bin. The penalty saw the Crusaders regain the lead - 22-20 after 65 minutes."
Down goes Clever.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 02:55#7
And point out to me where Jordaan beat one defender all game....let alone four players he "fought through"
CJordaan0/002/2/3300018/20/000/0
Down goes the Oom again....terrible predictions, Frans excelling against the Saders and Jordaan making 3 metres all game. Hahaha....and then there is PSG balls up.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 03:26#8
Mozasrt
You are a stupid prick. If it was not for Jordaan the winning try would never have been scored. Add to that that Franbsie is nor a passing mogul as is eVident from the following stats:-
Steyn0/1107/6/85613146/30/000/0 Fransie only passed the ball six times and not all of those were to players outside of him. As per normal Jordaan lived off scraps passed to him.
Mind you Fransie's stats looked good for the first 5 minutes of the game - thereafter it crumbled into dust again.
And your quote from Rugby365 on Alberts is meaningless. Why can't you make uop your own mind about things? If you want to know - I wrote extensively about the issue of professional fouls elsewhere. The first one was on Jordaan when Crotty jersey-pulled him out of following up with Steyn in the case of the Sithole try. That was a yellow card offence - and not penalizing it set the tone for the rest of the match. The Deysel story should also have resulted in a yellow card for the Crusaders player - and Deysel was idiotic in reacting like he did. He got carded and the Crusaders player got away with it. Later in the match it became a free -for-all in the relevant regard.
Alberts is dim - he should have realized that the ref would look for anything he could to ensure a Crusaders win. He should not have been caught out so blatantly as he was. I am not justifying illegal and unprofessional play. What the referee did today would probably end up in a few weeks rest for him to go and study the Laws of rugby again.
Now onto Brussow - what did Rugby 365 said about his performance? Quotiing one and not the other is unethical.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 03:48#9
Likewise Brussouw was massive for the Cheetahs, a pity he put his team at risk by getting carded, but there is no denying his contribution.
That's what I said
However, our award goes to Cheetahs flank Heinrich Brussow, who was again the team's energiser bunny - carrying the ball, making good metres, tackling his heart out, making life tough for the opposition at the breakdown, taking a few intercepts on defence and even winning a line-out.
That's what Rugby365 said
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 03:52#10
Mozart
Thanks - interesting reading. now how do you match that up with the following Mozart statement:-
"Then the difference between Alberts penalty and that of Brussouw is that Brussouws served no purpose."?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 05:25#11
White made it a 10-point game, after Coenie Oosthuizen was penalised at a tackle, before Heinrich Brussow was yellow-carded in the 72nd minute for kicking the ball away again after the whistle had gone.
From 365. This obviously went whoosh over your head...along with everything else.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 10:17#12
Mozart
As per normal you are totally daft. Both yellows were bloody bullshit, but you tried to justify one and demonize the other. Normal Mozart BS when trying to justify Treeby Tackle Alberts poor show in general.
And I love the way you refer to the one missed tackle by Steyn and missed out on the other two while going for Jordaan. The latter's missed tackles at least slowed down the player so to be easily tackled by the next player - but Steyn's was plain and simple complete misses - the one being an Albert's Treeby effort and a try.
The day you start to be objective and show understanding of rugby - that day is when people can start taking note of your player assessments.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 18:11#13
Let me help you. Brussouw was involved in a very similar incident with the ball in the first half....he got away with it because Nic White chose to push him in the face and the penalty was reversed. It was very clear that a repeat offense was likely to be treated harshly. Brussouw kicking away the ball served no purpose at the time, there was no risk of a quick Brumbies strike....it also ensured a card. I'm sure once he got off the field Heindrich was kicking himself and hoping the Brumbies never took advantage. They didn't and so he got the MOM....which he fully deserved. If the Brumbies won he would have been the first to admit his stupid error....got it now?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 19:00#14
Mozart
I had it all along - I am not getting it from you.
The problem is not Brussow, it is Alberts - whom you exonerated for getting a yellow card as if it was nothing. It was terrible since it was when the Sharks were playing with 13 men and In your match summary of players you never mentioned it - that was the problem.
If you were fair in player assessment this type of thing would not happen. You never mention anything negative about your favoured players - even iof they bugger up a game completely. That is he point.
I said Steyn was invovled in a brilliant attacking move early in the game and then he started regressing. In other words I am honest - give him credit where credit is due and then saying that he did go backwards as the game progressed. That is an honest assessment and I gave reasons for my assessment. Your assessment is a fairy tale. Get it?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 20:47#15
No...no....no. They were not playing with 13 men when Alberts was carded. They were playing with 13 men after he was carded. Wrong about Alberts, wrong about Jordaan bursting through 4 tacklers., wrong about Reinach having a good game. Wrong about Jannie du Plessis who had a great game and made all his tackles, including a massive one. Wrong about Fransie who made a massive contribution all the time he was on the park....including pushing in the scrums....the kind of stuff real rugby guys love.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 21:06#16
Mozart
Balls = I did not say they were playing with 13 men when Alberts was carded - his carding would make them playing with 13 men.You are a bloody liar and misrepresenting everything. I said Jordaan had four men in front of him - he did get over the gain line and placed the ball for Cooper to pick up and get over the line to score his try. Fransie also made a questionable contributions in some respects - his stats proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt.
How about -
* missing the tackle on Slade and missing two other tackles giving him a missed tackle ratio of 33%;
* causing 4 possession turnovers; and
* failure to find touch with a penalty kick.
Fransie should with his speed become a loosie - it is nothing funny for a backline player to be used in scrumming when they have carded players - Pietersen was also used for the said purpose.
Fransie did something he has not done the whole season - he had a hand in a brilliant try and I give him credit for that. However, he has for the rest been very much like he was through all matches this year - very average and not really Springbok selection material.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 May 2014, 21:14#17
" The problem is not Brussow, it is Alberts - whom you exonerated for getting a yellow card as if it was nothing. It was terrible since it was when the Sharks were playing with 13 men"
I quote your exact words...."whom you exonerate for getting a yellow card....since it was when the Sharks were playing with 13 men"
Game over...apologize. Or are you going to try and lie your way out of your goof again....like Paris St Germaine.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 May 2014, 21:35#18
OK - I apologize - sorry I meant they would be playing with 13 men after the carding of Alberts. However, he was so poor all game long - his absence was not really felt - so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
The following says it all :-
Alberts0/000/1/1000007/11/011/0
The number of zeroes says it all.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 May 2014, 14:21#20
saffex
You must know that our friend Mozart has favourites and would write up De Jongh for instance like it was unbelievable. That try by De Jongh was easy - De Allende drew in rwo defenders and De Jongh was in space.
The way he originally described the games this weekend was so different from what actually happened - it really was a farce. Steyn was very good in the attack that let to Sihole's try, but afterwards went into decline and was very average for the rest of the game. I still think he is not a flyhalf and that remains a fact. Whether he is good enough at center remains a wide open question - he was very average all year long and in some games a serious disappointment.
His break and try assist on Saturday was the first one in all the games he played in this year. I personally do not think one good break makes up for all the average and under-par performances in the other 8 games played.
