How good was Danie Gerber?

Anyone care to elaborate?

Almost as good as JJ Engelbrecht. Saffex can take it from here. 

Brilliant in his day. Looks a lot like a Kriel. Against modern defences? No. That kind of running requires free space. You don't have that in rugby post 98/99. That's when we began our struggles on attack. 

LMAO

Sure we had no struggles in attack until 2018  - there was just nothing up to year in attack and scoring of tries was a rarity,    In 2018 there were promising signs that the struggle was happening and success seemed to be attainable -  in 2019 the full recovery was attained and the Springboks scored more tries in that year than any other national team/.  Mission attained, LMAO   

Plenty of 13s shine on attack today. Ours seldom do because we funnel so much dead-end possession through 12 and static phase-play. 

@Lügnerin: You aren't actually commenting on the point I was making, but seeing as you are looking for another helping of egg. 

Tries 2019

1. England (63)
2. New Zealand (62)
3. South Africa (52)

1. 2007 Boks scored 81, conceding 24 
2. 2018 Boks scored 37, conceding 38 
3. 2013 Boks scored 47, conceding 19
4. 2014 Boks scored 38, conceding 19
5. 2015 Boks scored 35, conceding 18

In modern attack structures, 13 has plenty of space. 12 has more than enough space. Watch each phase Damian plays and look at what he does. Before each phase, mark out the attacking units, like this. Then the lines run. 

The idiot has gone of again.   ESPN only had 76 tries being scored in 2007 - maybe you discovered another 5,   Of those 76 tries -

*   15 were scored against an experimental English team  - in 2 tests

*   15 were against Namibia and a further 8 against Samoa   

*   3 were in the Tri-nations

In the WC itself only 35 tries were scored against what was a weak series of teams.  Much weaker than the competition was this year,

I have checked the WC years only - but the fact is that even in those years you were making a comparison that is totally misleading.    You actually mentioned 35 tries scored in 2015 - why did you leave out 2019 when the Springboks scored 50 tries and gave away only 9.   Typically what is expected form you - deception personified.   The 2011 world Cup year you also left out, why? 

You take your years mentioned in 2013 - which teams played in SA in June that year - Italy, Scotland and Samoa - the worst visiting combination since  2012.   The Springboks scored 16 tries of their total 47  leaving a balance of 31  in the other 9 tests played.   In the home test against Argentina  9 tries were scored - leaving the rest of the 8 tests played  with only 22 tries scored.

But 2013 was not a year comparable to  anything that happened in 2018 anyway - 2012 was.  So you deliberately refrained from quoting comparable years as expected.   

So take a real comparable - 2015 WC year against 2019 WC year and compare those and 2012 with 2018 and then you will see the difference.  Anybody relying on your kind of statement on stats issues must have his head read.   

All of your disagreements are incorrect. As previously stated, many times, your knowledge of Bok rugby is appalling. That is part and parcel of being a plastic fan. 

No  AO  - I dealt with reality - you with BS and selected stats that has no bearing on reality.  It is exact knowledge of the situation on my part and total deception on yours,  I am also not making up stories like you do and then say it is the truth.    So it has all to do being the BS on your part and reality on my part.

Deny what I wrote above if you really have anything logical to say, but logic is something you are clueless about - since all you write is unadulterated BS based on prejudice.  That is why you quote the 2015 WC year and left out the 2019 one for example.  You quote the 2007 year without evaluation as to what actually happened and left out the 2011  WC year altogether.  

That is why you make ridiculous claims about the 2015 RC and WC performances being better than the 2019 performances.   It is utterly ridiculous what you came up with and then expect from people to accept your idiotic statements.                   

You bring up try counts. You lose.

You bring up style of play. You lose.

You bring up individual stats. You lose. 

You bring up hemisphere comparisons. You lose. 

Every time you raise an issue, it's to lob your own big head. Be less sloppy, more honest and humble. Save yourself the unending heartache. I'm not you mommy or daddy; I'm not going to pander to your incessant need for attention and praise. 

I bring up predictions as to results I win - I bring up trophies won I win - I bring up player performance evaluations - I win.  I do not do distortions on performance evaluations - I win.

"Genius is not defined nor denied by era."

Clone Warne, Ali, Tiger, Roger or any of the other greats and let them compete today. Their success would only be negatively affected by the potential existence of greater genius that wasn't around during their day.

Using era to limit the success of past legends is silly. There was a playing field. There is a playing field. All competitors have equal opportunity to succeed or fail.

Show me a boxer today that could live with Ali if he were born in 1995.  Same goes for Warne. Maradonna and Pele? You already know the answer.

Gerber would walk it. Genius always does.

Pisshead aka AO

Watch the following clips - maybe you will learn something of the game of rugby:-

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=muller+du+plessis&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dmuller%2520du%2520plessis%26FORM%3dEDGSH1%26refig%3dfdfdb362cda148409c42f90ab95fe9f2%26httpsmsn%3d1%26msnews%3d1&view=detail&mid=E5FDAD43FDCE26D9564FE5FDAD43FDCE26D9564F&&mmscn=vwrc&FORM=VDRVRV

https://www.bing.com/ videos/search?q=muller+du+plessis&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dmuller%2520du%2520plessis%26FORM%3dEDGSH1%26refig%3dfdfdb362cda148409c42f90ab95fe9f2%26httpsmsn%3d1%26msnews%3d1&view=detail&mid=924BE5C43E679F718F08924BE5C43E679F718F08&&mmscn=vwrc&FORM=VDRVRV

I often saw Danie Gerber playing - for me as a player he was on par with O'Driscoll,   A star that was rare in SA since the start of the professional era due to the development of rugby over the last two decades.   

A player needs to be exceptional to shine as a center at present.  That does not mean we must do a Mozart or AO and condemn all SA centers in the 2019 WC while writing up players like Basteraud, Slade and Kerevi as world beaters.

De Villiers in his prime was a class act - he started to fade out after 2012-13 - bu t we are not getting anywhere by writing off the present available centers,   Heaven forbid that the two of us mention anybody as players with good performances and others with development potential - according to Mozart that is the kiss of death of those players - he would always go for such players all-out for the rest of their playing careers.

Not dealing with centers - but rather looking at the  full back and wing situation as referred to in the video clips above.   I see the guy as the future replacement of Willie le Roux,   Let me know what you think about him.   He is performing better than Kolbe did in playing Sevens and that take some doing,      

Class trumps any generation......any era. 

It's too naive to say class trumps anything, especially with the change from amateur to professional.

"Show me a boxer today that could live with Ali if he were born in 1995.  Same goes for Warne. Maradonna and Pele? You already know the answer."

At some point in their careers the above would have been amateurs. You can add Joe Louis, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras, Sugar Ray Robinson, Serena Williams, Michael Jordan etc to the list

Shez

It's like saying, the harder yuo make the test the better the dumb kids will do at it.

No, the smarter ones will always do better than the dumb ones. 

Unless you make the test so difficult that everyone scores zero.

...or you could go the other way and say that the "pro era" may have benefited already talented people more.  

More training, more skills and more time spent playing.

"I'm going to use your boxing analogy to address this, first off Ali would not have fought as a heavyweight so immediately the metre at which one uses to argue is made redundant."

Lol, no it isnt/doesnt. 

It just means he would have dominated at whatever weight class he found himself in. 

It is rather difficult to compare because Gerber played at center and Lomu on the wing.  Wings has slightly more space than centers and  Lomu was an exceptionally  strong ball carrier for the time he played for the AB's.    The SA players have always bragged about the fact that Lomu never scored a try playing against SA.

However, since 1995 there were major changes in rugby and it is difficult to compare players from the 1980's and 1990's with present players.  

Jonah was a physical anomaly...brilliant player, but his size and speed gave him an edge. Danie's genius was something different though, but his upper legs were also a bit freakish for that time.

The subject under discussion is "How good was Danie Gerber" not Lomu.

Plus one was a center and the other was a wing,

I have no doubt that Danie Gerber was the greatest #13 that rugby has produced in my lifetime.

Sure their have been other great players at #13 but he was simply outstanding as a center and a SPRINGBOK.

Agree wholeheartedly with the statements made by Saffex and DbDraad. 

Shezza ?

IMO Danie was better than BOD...way better. We had fantastic talent in the mid 80's...such a pity they didn't get to compete regularly...such a shame.

Gerber

Naas

Carel

Mort

Schmidt 

Morné Dup

Michael Dup.

Heunis

Flippie.

Divan

Rob Louw

Burger Geldenhuys.

Gave me the love for rugby till this day! The 80's was special for sure...even in troubled South Africa. 

It's like Donald Bradman

Put him in today's age of cricket with all the technology and he would never have averaged 99.9%

Too many overturned referrals or been given out more for catches, stumpings, nicks, run outs,  and he would have been out far more than he was given back then.

Not saying he is still not the best ever, just saying he would never have still had the same average...….never

Well, we'll never know...99 average is exceptional for sure. Steve Smith sitting just below 65 ATM....99 is a tall order though.

The pond was obviously much smaller back then, so things were easier for sure.

There's only one answer to the achievements of any one great sportman in any given sport and it's answered with a question......Why weren't others achieving the same heights at the time........right now as we speak eg there is no Tiger Woods.

Forget the excuses of smaller pools, technology etc......the conditions were the same for all at any given time...so?

My point stands.....a great would be a great regardless of the era.

Exactly Denny

According to the counter argument, Messi should not exist.

Yet he does. So do Ronaldo, Tiger,  Mayweather, Fed, Kallis...

You find moments and games where all the above dominate their opposition by the same margin that Gerber would dominate his counterparts. It's the consistency with which they all manage to do it that reveals the gap between genius and the other 99.9%.

Are things so tight that nobody should really stand out?

No.

Genius is the difference. 

Plum, Tiger is probably the perfect example to use in this debate because he cuts across a few generations. There's two things no-one can coach i.e speed and genius.

I've just given you a living example in Tiger Woods who cuts across generations and eras.