AO
WHERE OM EARTH DID YOU GET THE STATS YOU QUOTED ABOVE FROM AS TO ETZEBETH AND ESTERHUIZEN,
I warned you in the past that everything you write on site will be checked and to discover honesty on your part is totally impossible.
Those numbers were form Foxsports. Both were quotes from their RC XV. How doth the egg taste deary?
Mike, you are in no position to be a checker of facts. It's best you sit in the corner, wearing your little propeller hat playing ball and cup.
WHERE OM EARTH DID YOU GET THE STATS YOU QUOTED ABOVE FROM AS TO ETZEBETH AND ESTERHUIZEN,
He got it from this Foxsports article, Mike.
Foxsports meters run is way out of whack with ESPN though, to the point where I find them hard to swallow.
Esterhuizen ESPN stats for the RC:
31 carries
115m
5 clean breaks
11 defenders beaten
26/30 tackles
Etzebeth ESPN stats for the RC:
46 carries
70m
4 defenders beaten
44/46 tackles
28/32 lineouts
There are some strange numbers on ESPN as well, like Etzebeth 8 carries for 1m in the losing test against Aus. Not impossible, but perhaps worth an actual review. No stats are perfect. Willie le Roux for example was not credited with his excellent try saving tackle against France.
Pakie
Thanks for the information. I am afraid that the Foxsport stats was from some one their reporters - since Foxsport did NOT run any competition on the series that would have caused them to produce stats as given.
In the past we used ESPN stats on site - there were other sources where there were slight differences between sources - but never such major differences such as reflected in the Foxsport article. That article is not scientific and not a relfection of what actually happened.
I basically agree with you on what you reflected as the RC test stats - but I have Etzebeth stats in the Aussie test as 8 carries gaining 7 meters. Other than the Argentine test in which Etzebeth put up an excellent performance - he was rather insignificant in the other tests. It is normally acceptable that one has to look at the average tackles made - meters gained per carry, etc to get what happened in tests played and I was not overly impressed with what Etzebeth produced in tests this year, other than the Argentine home test,
Still think he should eb in the team - but also that he should be making a better effort than he did. .
AO
I always doubt you and your sources and I was given the reference by Pakie. I never really rely on newspaper reports on matches since I often enough are unreliable and the one of Foxsport - who did not run a competition on the series was obviously unreliable.
I queried some Foxsport data at one stage when they were in fact running a fantasy selection competition and they referred me to ESPN to show me that the two systems are very similar. Since as stated they did not run a competition on the series - the data is most likely a thumb-suck and not reliable.
To make sure that there is some uniformity when comparisons are made in place - we have for years used the ESPN stats and never looked at other stats when dealing with players. News media reports - like the one on Foxsport is totally unreliable and m y advice to you is to use a uniform system when providing stats on site.
Don't try the stunt again please.
Well, whether it's 1m or 7m made from 8 carries, does anyone remember how red-faced and indignant Moffie got when CJ Stander only averaged 5m per carry some time ago? Moffie used that stat to basically write CJ Stander off as an international forward so I wonder what he'll have to say when it's his precious Eben averaging less than 1m per carry?
LMAO!
I'm guessing the semen-encrusted poster of Eben on the end of Moffie's bed might be spared a new layer of Moffie's body fluids tonight!
Ceradunce
Thanks for that - Serfontein was piss poor though - so I was wrong about the sub and right about his performance. Very poor.
"I never really rely on newspaper reports on matches since I often enough are unreliable"
I appreciate your honesty. It's just a pity it took this long.
Speaking of unreliable sources. I pretty effectively took apart ESPN when dealing with Damian's second England test. A lot of fun was to be had that day.
My advice to you is to stop listening to yourself. Afterall, you acknowledged you are unreliable.
Pakie
I also checked the facts as listed by you nd am in agreement. Purely looking at the\ stats the meters gained is really impressive, but the problem is that two gains amounted to over 90 meters of the 115 meter gained - and at the end fo thos two gains there were possession turnovers - which negated the two gains in full.
What you did not include is that Esterhuizen also lost possession 5 times and was penalized twice. I admire the line breaks very much - but not what followed,
Did he lose possession or did the clean cleaners fail to do their job? There were two turnovers in the Aussie win André lost at home in Brisbane where the cleaners allowed Pocock free reign. Once again I have to hold you delicate little hand and walk you across the dangerous road of Comprehension Avenue. No need to thank me.
Dimness
Your taking apart of ESPN stats was as per normal with you an airy fairy story - bad news in the extreme. act is you quoted a newspaper story as containing reliable stats and made a total arsehole of yourself - as per normal.
Now lets get back to turnovers in tackle situations, Some players are very good in preventing turnovers and an excellent example is Du Toit. He rarely if ever give away balls when tackled, He makes very sure the balls are out of the reach of the\turnover attempters. De Allende is another player where it happens rarely. Esterhuizen does not know the art of placing a ball so as to reduce turnovers. That is why turnovers in his case is routine.
Steph conceded 13 turnovers this season. He wasn't very good in a few of the latter games, especially against Wales. He conceded more possession than any other Bok.
Damian is the worst Bok for body position in contact, footwork and ball placement. He doesn't protect the ball well going into contact either.
Why do you do this to yourself?
Wow Mozart you never let it go about CJ do you.
The Irish back row is the best in the world (or there abouts). We have a LOT of depth and huge amount of competition and CJ is a guaranteed starter. He is one of the top three number 8s in the world. Yardage is a one measure of the quality of a player but it is not the only one and it is very apparent to anyone who watches an Irish/Munster match and knows about rugby they will see his merit.
You may not think he is the best in the world and i accept that we all have different views but to say he is not a great player shows little understanding of his role in the Irish game plan and how he executes it.
Indeed if you look at the following forum you will see that rugby supporters across the world will agree with me (I know not a lot of responses i know)
https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/world-23-of-the-year.42522/
Wow Mozart you never let it go about CJ do you.
The Irish back row is the best in the world (or there abouts). We have a LOT of depth and huge amount of competition and CJ is a guaranteed starter. He is one of the top three number 8s in the world. Yardage is a one measure of the quality of a player but it is not the only one and it is very apparent to anyone who watches an Irish/Munster match and knows about rugby they will see his merit.
You may not think he is the best in the world and i accept that we all have different views but to say he is not a great player shows little understanding of his role in the Irish game plan and how he executes it.
Indeed if you look at the following forum you will see that rugby supporters across the world will agree with me (I know not a lot of responses i know)
https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/world-23-of-the-year.42522/
AO
Your assessment of players is simple at best. You do not even know that possession turnovers result from inter alia -
* knock-on of balls;
* poor kicks;
* being held off the ground while having the balls;
* hanging onto balls at breakdowns - resulting in penalties; and
* losing possession of balls at breakdowns.
How many turnovers of Du Toit resulted from each of the above?
I dealt wit the last of the above only - and as per normal you go bananas However, I accept that you are too ignorant on rugby to understand what I was dealing with and what I wrote about. Even though I wrote clearly that Du Toit and for that matter De Allende in such situation place the ball carefully to -
* ensure quick recovery and further distribution; and
* prevent opposing players to get to the ball to make turnovers.
If you had not noticed that during the tests this year you must indeed be the greatest fool on site.
Boorad
If you ever believe the twaddle written by Mozart and co on site you must know as little about rugby as they do. I do not get upset by their idiocy anymore like I used to.
Mozart has long-running campaigns against players - his against Stander started in 2012 and was always based on prejudice - never on performance.. When it was clear that Meyer did not regard Stander as a suitable test player - Mozart supported him all out. Meyer was the worst selector of players I have seen for decades - but Mozart always supported his selections. Meyer never selected players on performance and he himself stated that as well - he was totally addicted to reputation.
Most of the members rate Stander highly and is jealous of the fact that he is playing for Ireland - especially since our present loosie combination is a shambles resulting from the shortsightedness of Meyer and Coetzee.
Mozart
Are you the hog here - I do not understand the ignorance you display at times.
Mozart
Are you the hog here - I do not understand the ignorance you display at times.
Simple? Here's your appraisal of the Boks vs New Zealand game of 2015:
Stay with the topic BSter. Have you been caught out again and do not know what to answer, dimness?
He had 35 ruck contributions, with much of his value coming in defence as he won one turnover, delivered one turnover assist, managed to slow the All Blacks’ possession twice, and also be present at five other defensive rucks.
more details here
https://www.the42.ie/analysis-rucks-ireland-all-blacks-2018-4350870-Nov2018/
Lies statistics and more lies... Van de Fleur is the third choice no 7 for Ireland and was excellent - close to man of the match. But the Irish pundits put Peter O Mahony and CJ ahead of him in terms of performance. We see a different game.... CJ takes the dirty ball and makes the real hard yard and gives clean presentation to get the momentum going again. He usually take 2 or 3 players out. This gives space and momentum to the other ball carriers. Ireland has plenty of them in the pack. It is a lot easier to make the yards when the gate is opened for you. Our previous number 8 Heaslip did the role in the past when CJ was playing 6. Then CJ was explosive and made breaks for fun but now he has to the grown up work.
The up close and dirty work is not very glamorous but it is essential to win matches. CJ is excellent at it.....
Lies statistics and more lies... Van de Fleur is the third choice no 7 for Ireland and was excellent - close to man of the match. But the Irish pundits put Peter O Mahony and CJ ahead of him in terms of performance. We see a different game.... CJ takes the dirty ball and makes the real hard yard and gives clean presentation to get the momentum going again. He usually take 2 or 3 players out. This gives space and momentum to the other ball carriers. Ireland has plenty of them in the pack. It is a lot easier to make the yards when the gate is opened for you. Our previous number 8 Heaslip did the role in the past when CJ was playing 6. Then CJ was explosive and made breaks for fun but now he has to the grown up work.
The up close and dirty work is not very glamorous but it is essential to win matches. CJ is excellent at it.....
boorad
There are at least four members on this site seeing totally different games to what actually happened. They have different concepts of what happened and their main ideas are to find excuses for attacking players they do not like and promote players they want to see to replace that I call their pet hate players.
They are known for falsifying what actually happened during games and one can nevr rely on their findings and attacks on their pet hate players, One of them is Stander and another is Marcell Coetzee of Ulster. Their main hate in the SA context is Pieter-Steph du Toit - but there are others on that list too,
So I would not worry overmuch what these four came up with as to Stander and some other players. If they cannot find fault with players on the field, they try to use stats and using it very selectively - so they mostly misinterpret what actually happened.
Unfortunately on this site you will have to suffer those fools gladly,
Duplicate
No Mozart what followed on those 22 carries" That should be the norm - not only the meters gained. But you would not understand that - if two or three players are necessary to bring down a player like Stander it leaves gaps in the defense that quick ball recoveries occur - gaps that can have devastating effects from an attacking perspective.
I can remember last year I believe that in one test match Stander scored three ties and you still attacked Stander for being ineffective.
But then I think it is beyond your understanding of the game of rugby to deal with this issue. After all you often comment on players without seeing the games at all and your strict norm in such cases is to downplay performance of your pet hate players.
No Mozart
You missed out on what the results are of carries - especially when it comes to certain players you constantly attacked. Not all 22 carries resulted in what you claim to be and it basically is a simpleton explanation anyway. Was one tackler responsible for all the tackles?
You are generalizing - like you often do in the case of players you dislike. You blame themn for making one mistake and then claim it is career-defining - even when the claim is not at all connected what actually happened in games. Take the Willemse incident when he was out of position. First of all you claimed that Erasmus should not have replaced Le Roux and when it transpired Le Roux was injured you went quiet. Next was a simple question - where would Le Roux have been taken into account the sequence of play that preceded the penalty warded and the kick made by Mo'unga? You never answered that one either. So the BS goes on and on.
It is the same when it comes to Mostert. You wrote a praise song about a driving maul that led to the final try against the French. When checking it was found that Mostert did try to implement a maul - but it was failing with the maul going backwards and Mostert with both his feet off the ground not playing any role in the forward movement of the maul. The forward movement was engineered by Du Toit and then helped along by Vermeulen. That was clear - even you and your equally dim friend AO did not realize what actually happened.
There has been too many incidents on this site where your descriptions of what happened in games have been seriously flawed or lied about deliberately and then repeated constantly as factual. The same applies to players like Stander, Malherbe, Du Toit and a long list of other players.
It is weird that you do attack players who are constantly out-performing the players you falsely praised so as to try and campaign for their replacement by lesser-performers. Weird indeed. .
.
That story was BS in extreme. If you care to watch what actually happened you would see that he identify the wrong player as Du Toit. Du Toit was on the opposite side from where he said he was. The photo was a normal Pakie farce.
I cannot help but think that you did not want know what actiually happened. and continue with your normal BS.
I constantly a sk questions for you to respond on - but you do not want to since it will expose your BS even further.
Did you see the face of the player he identified as Du Toit - while I saw repeatedly where Du Toit actually was and what he said was Du Toit was utter BS. He had no face and nothing to identify the player he identified as Du Toit. So get him to post a real pic - he has posted pics in the past that was from angles that gave no clarity what happened and he is totally wrong here again.
No you clean up your act. You were queried about a number of statements you made and there was no answer - what are you hiding?
