Highlights of the NZ test last year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIAXDEKqQwg - Here for everybody to see are the following points: - 1) The Habana try is created by firstly Alberts and then by brilliant hands from Jean. - 2) In the Whitelock try, Goosen is clearly injured, although he plays on after the try. Goosen attempts the tackle 5 metres out....not on the goal line, as has become part of folklore. And it is Taute's failed line kick that set it up. - 3) The try that was set up by Dagg, again involves Taute, who absolutely had Dagg in his sights before horribly missing him and then falling down. - 4) In the final All Black try....with a dangerous situation developing, Taute literally freezes allowing the movement to run onto him, versus closing to cut down space and time. - What's not shown here is Jantjies, who was irrelevant to proceedings. My point is not that these are the only things that went wrong....but they were the big things that went wrong. Experience and proven test class count for something. Newbies aren't a guarantee of success, if they aren't fully ready.

Alberts involved in the try of Habana? How did that happen since he did virtually nothing in the Soweto test. I can hardly believe that piece of invention by you as an example of his play. He was useless in that test handing the ball four times making a total of 5 meters in the four efforts, making one tackle all game lonmg and taking 2 line outs - not his speciality and very rare indeed. How was he involved in this case? By the rare case of taking a ball in the line-oout - that being exceptionally rare in his case in a field he contributes NOTHING as a rule. The Whitelock try is also a total misrrpresentation on your part insofar as Goosen's involvement is concerned. He was injured and being treated by medics - when he saw what was happening, got up despite the injury and tried to tackle Whitelock at least a meter out - not far enough out to dstop the try. Your 5 meters is a figment of your imagination implying that an effective tackle was not made. The tackle was effective - but to near the tryline to stop Whitelock from scoring.. The player who missed the one tackle that you ascribed as a missed tackle by Taute was in fact Hougaard and not Taute - so another misrepresentation of facts. I have no problem with your allocation of blame to Taute - he made aa number of crucial mistakes and he was to blame partly for the loss. Your condemnation of Goosen is crap - as per normal in cases such as those. The real deficiencies in that game came from Jantjies - cut out completely by his teammates and never did anything constructive in the game, Taute, Alberts (whose contribution was a joke in bad taste and the inability of Etzebeth to correct the rubbish of the forwards, which in general put up a poor show. Why concentrate only on that test. Why not the other Championship tests where players failed miserably and even on a bigger scale than they did in the Soweto test? Is it because you want to cover up the other failures in an effort to concentrate on failure of two players only in the Soweto Test? For instance Morne Steyn was an embarrassment in the tests he played in last year, Frnacois Steyn was wickedly poor, fat and slow, Spies was no better, Kirchner was a joke in bad taste, Alberts was an embarrassment, Kruger was useless, The list can go on with other poor selections of Meyer - he really got some crap selections in place. The problem is that aside from Francois Steyn - all the above losers are still in Meyer's squad. Taute was in the squad for the EOYT - but was injured afterwards - so he is out, Spies is in the same boat - otherwise he would also have been in the squad, For the rest the useless are all there and all will foul up this year - same as they did ;last year. That can be guaranteed

You haven't look at the highlights I posted have you OOM? If you did you would have seen the Habana try started with Alberts breaking through the middle and offloading to Jean. You would also have clearly seen a hobbling Goosen make contact with Whitelock exactly on the 5 metre line. But then again you never looked at the highlights. Much more fun to keep the biased view and attack other posters for reporting honestly. You are pretty pathetic OOm.

I have looked at those highlights and they confirm two things......firstly Taute's kick for touch was almost a damn good one, he got good distance, but one certainty is that his failure to find touch was not the cause of the try, the reason the try was scored was because Vermeulen and Habana failed to stop the Kiwi 14, who hands Vermeulen off and gets the better of Habana and effects an offload to Read. 

 

Had Vermeulen taken the Kiwi wing out as he should have, there would not have been a try.

 

Secondly the second Kiwi try had absolutely nothing to do withTaute and everything to do with Habana rushing out the line and exposing the Bok defence in the process.

 

As for Dagg beating Taute, that was a fair beat, but equally Bekker was there to tackle Dagg and missed him completely.

 

So as I asserted post that match, Taute was NOT the reason the AB scored 3 tries, that is just plain and utter nonsense. He missed Dagg, as did Bekker, which eventually lead to a try thanks to Nonu being missed by a Bok.

 

Its so easy to blame a player one does not rate - the facts tell a different story

Very often a try is not down to one player...there are several contributors. But if that actor did his job properly, all of the other failures are moot. Taute finds touch, which he critically needed to do with our defence way out of position.....no try. Taute tackles Dagg who was his man in that movement.... no try. Taute comes up quickly and smothers the AB runner instead of hanging on his heels....a chance the try could have been stopped. It's possible to point to other actors, but it's not possible to ignore Taute's starring role.

Moz and equally had Vermeulen and Habana stopped the Kiwi 14, no try - Vermeulen being handed off by a wing was worse offence than Taute missing touch.

 

The second try had nothing to do with Taute, had Habana not rushed out or effected a constructive rush, there would have been no try and the Bok defence would not have been exposed. The only culprit for try two is Habana and thats a fact.

 

Dagg beat Taute as he did Bekker, as did Nonu a Bok defender a few seconds later to score the try. Taute had a hand in the third try and that is it.......but not a lone hand.

Any kick done from deep within your own 22 , with your teams defence in dissaray needs to go out. 

(actually run from behind the try line)

 

This is true against any under12B rugby team, but especially true against the All Blacks that thrive off counter attacks.

 

A good kick by Taute LMAO!

 

 

Well for a start we are talking about an outside centre here not a flyhalf - expecting a 13 to execute a perfect touch finder is naive to say the least. His kick was good and nearly did the trick.

 

Secondly our defence was not in dissaray, we had every AB covered and the only reason they scored was because both Vermeulen and Habana missed the Kiwi 14 and Strauss and Goosen did not stop Whitelock.

 

Blaming Taute's kick is laughable, much like blaming him for the second try is, when clearly Habana was at fault. Its not the first time Habana's rush has exposed us.

 How can a defence not be in dissaray if your outside center is taking responsibility for a clearance kick that recieves the ball behind his tryline.  

Where was the flyhalf or fullback?

Next it will be a prop taking the clearance kick.

 

Tackles were missed, but this happens when the All Blacks are given so much time and space to counter attack. 

It is this type of unstructured play that should never happen when playing against the All Blacks. 

 

It is niave to try get distance on a kick when the priority is that it goes out

 

Taute played flyhalf when he was in school, so he should have experience of knowing when to put the ball out