Greenwood ‘a very astute rugby man’ says this about Quirke’s try’

Forum » Rugby » Greenwood ‘a very astute rugby man’ says this about Quirke’s try’

Dec 27, 2021, 17:43

 Raffi Quirke's try

The pièce de résistance. It is Quirke's try, but Slade is the architect once more. From an off-the-top lineout from Lawes, the pass is a bullet to Slade at first-receiver. I cannot categorically say how early Slade sees the disconnect in the South African defensive line but he certainly takes advantage of it, making it wider to allow Marchant and Quirke to do the rest, as shown below.

South Africa's midfield defence looks like two pairs of defenders, not as one line of four. The set-up is Elton Jantjies and De Allende, then a gap that is too large for any midfield, then Am and Mapimpi together. De Allende and Am will be kicking themselves. 

The pass from Quirke is out in front of Slade, who "slides" down the pass to get outside of his defender's channel. Jantjies is meant to have him, so Slade accelerates out of that channel and eyeballs De Allende. He looks directly into his eyes and says: "I am getting to you." Jantjies would probably have got to him - but De Allende is sucked in. He doesn't play the patience game that Slade did with Kolisi and he thinks: "It's time to smash Slade." Am and Mapimpi are slow to react because they are still remembering the earlier run off the same set-up I described in point three. Slade had run the same play and thrown the long pass to free Steward and Malins. 

The South Africans hesitate to cover that threat and Marchant must have thought his Christmases had come early. He cuts the same line he must have run umpteen times in training for Quins and England, the one least likely to result in glory. But you keep running it perfectly in the hope that one day the pieces come together, and the accuracy of your team is such that it forces the opposition to fracture, splinter and lose shape. Marchant gallops clear, passes to Quirke on the inside and from no territory and no possession in the second half, England have a crucial seven-point try.

Dec 27, 2021, 17:46

There you go Dave…as Greenwood, your named expert on centre play, says…..Jantjies would have got to Slade, in fact did get to Slade…..but Dud Allende got ‘sucked in.’

Stick with moz and stick with Greenwood when he corroborates moz..


Dec 27, 2021, 17:47

By the way he really rates Slade as well….another player you constantly trash.

Dec 27, 2021, 21:24

Yes but Greenwood is astute enough to call it as it is unlike your biased bullshit

He is 100% correct in saying DA gets sucked in by all the variations happening - the long pass, Slade drifting to DA

Woodward as ever is spot on

Dec 27, 2021, 21:28

‘Woodward as ever is spot on’……hahaha….you’re rattled Dave. As Greenwood pointed out Jantjies had Slade, which means…….wait for it..,,Dud had Marchant. 

Except he didn’t, he got ‘sucked in’…..huge mistake, cost us the test, enjoy your egg.

Dec 27, 2021, 23:03

No he says probably Jantjies had Slade - probably casts doubt which you would know if you had played the game.

Why would I be rattled - I’m not stupid enough given the circumstances to blame DA for a try.

I can fully appreciate the opportunity created by England and the resulting doubt cast in the Bok defence, which is exactly what Greenwood is highlighting

Dec 27, 2021, 23:40

So because Jantjies might miss his tackle…..which he didn’t….Dud was justified in providing a golden pathway for Marchant? Greenwood doesn’t agree with that which is why he says Dud was ‘sucked’ in and he perfectly sums up Dud’s mental error ‘time to smash Slade’.

And here’s the kicker ‘he doesn’t play the patience game’ meaning he unnecessarily moved out of defensive alignment.

Greenwood is saying Slade, the man you don’t rate  bamboozled Dud and as a result we lost the test. Confirmed by your preferred source.

Dec 28, 2021, 00:27

Moz this is a classic case of you shooting yourself in the foot by providing a take by the astute Greenwood who sums up the passage of play without blaming a single Bok defender as you ignorantly did.

He first correctly points out that our midfield defence looks like two pairs of defenders, not one line of 4.

He correctly says Jantjies is meant to have him and probably would have - which is hardly conclusive now is it and as a result justifies DA’s doubt and being sucked in as result - Fact

He says DA and Am will be kicking themselves - not DA alone

The crux - Am and Mapimpi are slow to react given the earlier passage of play covered by Greenwood.

So Moz thanks for providing Greenwood’s take which of course does not point fingers at DA alone as you ignorantly did.

Greenwood is spot on only failing to mention the dummy run by Smith which would have further served to create doubt

Implying DA is stupid because he got sucked in is both naive and insulting to those that understand the intricacies that create opportunities

And every player on the field has the desire to smash another - no more so than your hero Schalk

Moz you are such easy pickings but I love that you brought Greenwood in to confirm your bias shit is just that - not that we needed Greenwood for that

Slade is a defensive liability - every time he plays us he literally gets smashed off his feet. He is like our Lions prospect Similane - great with ball in hand if there is space, but a complete liability in contact. At least Similane has age on his side

Dec 28, 2021, 02:49

Talk about making excuses and deliberately misinterpreting Greenwood. Firstly there was no dummy run by Smith, we have pointed that out to you already he was simply moving with the play. Secondly Marchant was clearly Dud’s man, which he blew by getting ‘sucked’ inside. The comment about Dud and Allende was about alignment, not about subsequent culpability ….the player who exacerbated the poor alignment by moving inwards was Dud. Am was never the player who was supposed to tackle Marchant, he was on the next man out,

This was a try from a lineout on halfway and according to you nobody was to blame. Greenwood clearly blames the player who got ‘sucked in’, your man Dud. Jean de Villiers in the commentary makes exactly the same point.

Slade is not a physical defender, but he would never have made a basic mental error like Dud did.

Dec 28, 2021, 16:25

No excuses at all.

Of course there was a dummy run. If your 10 who usually receives the ball from his 9 if he is in a position to do so, does not receive it, it’s a dummy run - helloooooo

No Marchant was not DA’s man, he was Am’s but as Greenwood pointed out, Am was standing out too wide because of what had happened in an earlier passage of play.

Greenwood does NOT blame a single player instead he sums up exactly what happened seeing the whole picture as I did not stupidly blaming a single player.

He sees the creative attack set up by England with the long pass to Slade instead of Smith, who is the dummy runner, he sees Slade target DA - all elements used to create doubt in the defence. He sees the poor defensive alignment consisting of two pairs instead of 4 aligned in a row - he blames Am and Mapimpi for this.

Greenwood’s take is mirrored by mine - we see it for what it was with no blame being attributed to a single player but to the collective coupled with the creative attacking play manufactured by England.

Slade is a defensive liability and offers nothing in contact. The guy is bog ordinary and gets owned by the Boks every time they play him. To his credit he threw a few well timed and accurate passes in that last test against the Boks.

Other than that he has been the Boks bunny boy - getting slapped out the way like the little thin rag doll that he is

Dec 28, 2021, 19:00

Smith wasn’t ever in position to receive the ball…..a dummy runner is one who looks like he’s going to get the ball. Smith was behind and inside the ball the moment the first pass was made to Slade. Nobody would ever have believed they were going to stop to pass it to him.

Greenwood likes Dud so he was measured….. but clearly fingered him ‘sucked’ inside and ‘didn’t play the patience game’.

Stop lying….your man clearly put the blame on  Dud,

Dec 28, 2021, 19:52

You are fucking lying are you saying the 9 could not have passed to Smith? Bwhaaahaaa

Ah so now Greenwood is measured because he likes DA - bwhaaahaaa

Why not just concede you completely fucked up relying on Greenwood’s take when in fact his take is spot on exposing you for you utter bullshit.

Of course Greenwood rates DA he is not stupid enough to ignore the impact he has for the Boks

Imagine a good rugby man like Greenwood getting it so wrong. Telling us the best 12 in the game is a Dud

The man knows his rugby - easily one of the most knowledgeable men in the business

Dec 28, 2021, 20:38

Lots of bwaaaaaahahahing. But it won’t change the fact that both Greenwood and JDV said the mistake was  made by Dud,

Why not just concede you are so biased that  when one of your favorite players makes a painfully obvious mistake….you can’t admit it.

Dec 28, 2021, 20:52

Stop lying Greenwood does not say the fault lay with DA

You are lying and you know it

Dec 28, 2021, 21:02

The try from a lineout on halfway which was nobody’s fault apparently.

Dec 28, 2021, 21:04

Of course he blames Dud….Dud  and Am would be kicking themselves, Dud got ‘sucked in, Dud didn’t ‘play the patience game’

He blamed Dud 3 times.

Dec 28, 2021, 21:13

He blames all our defenders unlike your pathetic take on blaming DA alone and you going so far as to say DA cost us the test

You just lie but best of all you think you are using Greenwood to support your bullshit only to be exposed for making a complete fool of yourself in the process

Dec 28, 2021, 21:55

No he doesn’t ….he blames Am for positioning……blames Dud for that and for being sucked in and for not having patience. 

It’s there in black and white….just like it was totally.clear in Pakie’s pictures. The only liar here is you fat  man.

Dec 29, 2021, 00:22

Bullshit he blames no one other than mentioning the fact Am and Mapimpi stayed out too wide because of what had happened previously

There is no blame, he explains the doubt in defence created by the subtle changes in the English attack.

He blames no one and credits the English attack unlike you who insultingly pointed fingers at DA alone

Anyone who knows anything about the subtleties of rugby would never be naive enough given the circumstances in that passage of play to blame one single player but unfortunately your misguided hatred of said player makes your takes about as credible as Trump being a bright man

Dec 29, 2021, 01:23

So no player was to blame…..it’s okay if they score from a lineout on halfway. Or maybe all players are equally to blame….Mapimpi is just as culpable as Dud.

This is all nonsense Marchant was Dud’s man, nobody else’s and for some reason he decided to tackle a man who was a;ready being tackled by Jantjies. In Greenwood’s words he got ‘sucked’ or in my words he got ‘suckered’ in.

A very dumb mistake by a rather dumb player.

Dec 29, 2021, 11:49

Oh what bullshit, Marchant was Am’s man, his opposite number, but he was too wide out as correctly pointed out by Greenwood

The long pass to Slade, the dummy run by Smith and Slade shifting towards DA will have created doubt in all the Bok defenders who thanks to Am were not correctly aligned in the first place.

So no blame can be attributed to one single player unless of course your whole take on that passage of play is skewed by your hatred of one player.

It was a well created move by England.

Start blaming a defender when he misses a one on one tackle not some concocted bullshit that has pathetic bias written all over it

Fact is DA was outstanding on the EOYT and nothing you say will change that as anything you have to say about DA is literally a load of utter bullshit

Dec 29, 2021, 17:41

Back to some real facts and  Pakie’s analysis.

 So there you have it Smith behind Slade and inside him running laterally waving a hand not acting like any kind of dummy runner.

Slade directly opposite Jantjies and if anything slightly inside him….clearly Jantjies man. Jantjies knows who he has to tackle.

Marchant directly opposite Dud ….you could draw a line parallel to the touch line right through Marchant and Dud.

Further out you see Am and Mapimpi lined up on the remaining two Pom runners.

It’s a perfect defensive alignment….and contrary to your expert Greenwood there are no big gaps.

Then Allende turns inside onto Slade and that’s where the big gap was created, allowing Marchant to run straight down the ground unimpeded, while Dud just stood there watching Jantjies tackle Slade.

Simples….case closed.

Dec 30, 2021, 14:37

Oh wow Moz you really are clueless when it comes to rugby is the bottom line.

Smith deeper than Slade means he is the dummy runner - the 9 could have just as easily passed to Smith with Slade running the dummy. Basic rugby moves.

That photo is one fucking frame, take it further and he shifts towards DA, confirmed by Greenwood in his analysis.

Wrong Greenwood is spot on there is a huge gap between DA and Am, as Am is too wide out.

Am should have been closer to DA in which case he would have had Marchant.

DA moves inward when Slade targets him, meaning he is no longer aligned with Marchant.

The doubt is created by the long pass, the dummy run by Smith and then Slade drifting towards DA. The defensive alignment was always wrong as Am was too far out.

Had Am been in the correct position the doubt created leading to DA targeting Slade would have had Marchant covered out wide

There is no way there should have been that much of a gap between DA and Am - therein lies the issue. Slade and Marchant target that gap by Slade drawing DA inwards by drifting towards him and Marchant running a straight line knowing Am is too wide out, opening a massive gap.

It’s that simple and that’s where the case is closed

Bottom line is Moz, given everything that happened no one is stupid enough to blame one single player for that try.

It was scored through a well executed move attacking a poor defensive alignment by the Boks

Dec 30, 2021, 15:33

“ It was scored through a well executed move attacking a poor defensive alignment by the Boks “ - pretty much spot on SafX. But that is also the worrying part as it shows that towards the end of 2021 our defence is slipping....and that DA and AM must work harder on there communication. Because games between top tier teams is mostly become so close, we can’t allow these tries to slip.

Dec 30, 2021, 15:33

“ It was scored through a well executed move attacking a poor defensive alignment by the Boks “ - pretty much spot on SafX. But that is also the worrying part as it shows that towards the end of 2021 our defence is slipping....and that DA and AM must work harder on there communication. Because games between top tier teams is mostly become so close, we can’t allow these tries to slip.

Dec 30, 2021, 15:34

Sorry double post

Dec 30, 2021, 19:48

The pass to Slade had already taken place by the time of this frame. Any ‘dummy runner’ effect was already done. Smith wasn’t even running at that point.

And at that time we had a perfect alignment with Jantjies on Slade and Dud on Marchant as the picture clearly shows. Nothing ANY Lions player was doing at that point should have confused Dud. There was NO sleight of hand. A simple pass to Marchant, Dud’s man.

Nice try …but bullshit.

Dec 30, 2021, 21:23

The only bullshit here is your ignorant take

You clearly have no idea what a dummy runner is. Of course Smith was a dummy runner as the 9 could have just as easily passed to him setting up a completely different play

How the fuck can the Bok defensive alignment be perfect with the huge gap between Am and DA?

What a joke

Greenwood is spot on and you served only to shoot you self in the foot ignorantly thinking he was backing your biased take on blaming DA alone

Dec 30, 2021, 21:25

Disagree Mpower - no side is always going to get their defensive structure right all the time - the game would be a boring one if they did

Sometimes we need attacking plans to prevail so that we see tries scored through good creative play

Dec 30, 2021, 22:17

Moron the pass had already been made. The line up was set…..Smith was a non factor.  I hope you are lying Dave because otherwise you are even dumber than I thought.

Dec 31, 2021, 02:29

No dumbfuck the 9 could have passed to Smith instead - fact

So both Jantjies and DA would have had their eyes on both Slade and Smith initially

The only dumb fuck here is you who is stupid enough and rugby ignorant enough to blame one player for the try

It’s fucking pathetic and smacks of nothing more than your childish anti DA

One of the many players who keep making your name mud

But best of all is you being stupid enough to think Greenwood saw it your way - fuck and you call me stupid - that’s the height of stupidity

Trying to rely on someone only to have your ignorant nose rubbed in it

Dec 31, 2021, 04:14

Yes he could have passed to Smith. But if you are not blind as well as stupid you will notice from the image, he had already passed and the lineup was clear. Jantjies on Slade/Dud on Marchant..

The ball is in Slade’s hands ….stupidissomo! This is classic Dave tactics, keep pushing a version of the truth that is literally blown up by the image you are looking at….and hope if you just repeat the lie you win the argument.

Your man Greenwood and JDV both fingered Dud…..gently because he is the current flavor of the day…..but clearly enough for anybody except an imbecile like you.

Dec 31, 2021, 12:48

That’s not the point - the standard move is passing to your 10, so eyes would have initially been on Smith the dummy runner then would have switched to Slade

All happening in seconds but all adds to the play and the doubt caused

Nope Greenwood does not blame DA at all he mentions DA as he does Jantjies, Am and Mapimpi

If anything he lays most the blame on Am being too far out creating the massive gap between him and DA as a result of the previous passage of play.

But equally he correctly highlights the creative bit of play set up by England

He is not stupid enough to blame DA alone as you do and I doubt Jean did either - I did not have Jean commentating my end

Bottom line is you childishly blamed DA alone for the try and Greenwood and myself exposed your bullshit

Dec 31, 2021, 16:14

Defence is not perfect, but defence should be good enough to stop easy tries from being scored. Games against OZ and ENG showed how our defence structures and communication collapsed at stages which costed us the game. So if you want to tell me that our backline defence/attack is up to standard, then why did we concede these tries which such ease? And why did we fail to create more attack play with the forward dominance/ball we had and turn it into points? Riddle me that pls.

Dec 31, 2021, 16:36

If Am was too far out, then Dud should have come inside!!!!! All balls. There was a perfect line up of runners and defenders. And Dud blew that up by coming inside. Jean said that, Greenwood said that….it’s obvious to anybody who isn’t a moron.

Dec 31, 2021, 16:51

Oh what crap if Am is too far out he should come in as he is creating the gap. DA had Slade targeting him so he is hardly going to move outwards

Our defensive alignment was never perfect it was anything but

Bullshit Greenwood gave the perfect explanation for DA coming in - it was completely justified

Blaming DA alone is not only ignorance it’s childish as it has stuff all to do with rugby

 
You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top