How posters assess the performance of players "objectively"

 Now watch this space. One of two things could happen here.

1. The ones referred to in the second paragraph will give it some thought and return later to try and rip everything that was said to pieces.
2. They will completely ignore the thread as if it never existed.

 Sharkbok
There are way too much subjectivity in respect of player assessments by members of this site.   It is best to look at what actually happens on the fie;d of play and make an objective assessment.   It is better to give both the positives and the negatives of a player - not pick one or two  incidents and assess the player entirely on that incident(s).   
I suppose we are all in some ways subjective and not fair in assessment.   It is better to look at what was produced during the whole game.   Pienaar started off the game very well by scoring that try.   He then started kicking away virtually every ball he got. Given the conditions under which the game was played that probably was a wise thing to do.  However, the kicking was from a quality perspective very poor - even Meyer subsequently made a remark supporting that impression.   The positive was the scoring oif the try - the negatoives the inaccurate and poor kicking throughout the game.   When assessing Pienaar I believe one has to look at both aspects - not only one.  
Now take Pollard for instance.  He made a mess of two kick ins. - the second one was not really a mess - everyone expected the Pumas to go for the ball and they did not - so the ball went over the dead ball line.  He knocked a ball on in a tackle situation. That was the some-total of his negatives.  On the positive side his game was under the circumstances above average.   To make out that he was a disaster is not at all objective.
If there are hesitation about performance it is always wise to check the stats as well - make sure that what you write as an assessment is statistically also correct.   Not that stats can give you all the answers - but it stop you from making an assertion about issues that is proven to be totally absurd.   
Unfortunately it is not only the members of this site who transgresses - the media scribes also have their favourites and they do the same thing.
If there is one thing I abhor it is to try and discredit players without any rhyme or reason.         

 Fact is matfield takes no more line out ball than any other player or is better at taking kick offs it's just bullshit. Lewies was the second highest line out taker in the s 15 for instance.
It's bloody obvious matfield looks lighter than he did when he was in his prime. He has shown all s 15 that he lacks grunt and has been dominated in contact. Matfield is a liability these days. No 37 year old should be playing modern test rugby because it's a younger man's game. Matfield s body cannot live up to the physical demands of test rugby. Same applies to bakkies who is a shadow of himself and it's just sad seeing him struggling to make an impact

Of course no one is totally objective. We're humans, emotional beings, not robots.

 This dominated in contact is BS. And Matfield was the lock behind equally slandered Steenkamp when the two of them destroyed the Welsh scrum. Lack of grunt is a theory with no, and I mean zero statistical or anecdotal evidence. Until we can actually see this lack of grunt, it should be treated as pure speculation.

 Matfield has been dominated in contact conceding possession but more to the point you never see him taking the ball up in contact as a lock should,  the only time we see him with ball in hand is out in the backs. He does no work in the engine room.
I must have missed the Bok scrum dominating the Welsh one. Thing is we will see matfield play against oz and nz and we will sit on wonder as to why we lost the physical battle.
We only have to wait a few weeks to witness matfield being exposed at test level for the old man he is

 Mozart
A player who is dominated in contact is one that is pushed asider by other players in rolling maul situations - is just pushed out of the way by ball carriers - cannot make any progress in ball carries in traffic and goes down straight when tackled resulting in ball penalties.    Those are all things the happened to Matfield.   What made it worse is the quality of his tackles - players going forward when he tackled them and getting the opposition on the front foot.  
Lack of grunt is in evidence all the time - but you refuse to admit it.  You only wish to see what you want to see - and when anything else occur - you ignore it.   When Bakkies produced nothing on Saturday - you praised him and found fault with De Jager who produced the goods.   That is the lack of objectivity you thrive on - what a loser.   
The above happened in Super 15 and happened in the June tests as well - so what is to be expected in the RC.  Much the same and on a higher level much worse to follow.      

 Hmmmm, looks like they went for option 1 but it happened sooner than I thought.

 im pretty objective. i give pros and cons for players i dont like. i gave alberts a balanced review and i even praised de allende and pienaar. i think mozart and ceradyne are pretty objective too. the kiwis are mostly balanced too. i think its a little cult on here that has some pretty ingrained views. like mike saying morne is the worst 10 in world rugby and thats a fact!! hahahaah!

 Bonzo
Since you and the other two morons are basically in agreement - they are balanced in their assessments.   What a joke - but to be expected from Morons.   

 there are at least 4 players that and mozart disagree on, si you are wrong again clevarmika, but hey thats just the norm. thanks cloudy nice to be appreciated and the feeling is mutual!

Gonzo the Gimp: "im pretty objective."

LMAO!

Yes, Gimp, your views on Pat Lambie are among the most balanced and objective I've ever seen. Tell us again how his mere existence makes your blood boil or how the mention of his name causes that vein on your forehead to start throbbing whil e steam comes out of your ears!

Wehe . . . "objective" . . . that is funny!

 mate im not an angry person who hates the world like you so i dont feel hatred for any player its just a game so its stupud to hate people over a ball game for a start. and as for lambie well what had he done? he hasnt had 1 standout test in 32 attempts. he had been mire backed than any ither south african over five years. i was a guy who backed lambie to take the reigns on the 2012 end of year tour but he delivered nothing. at his very best he is a wynand olivier in his prime, in fact they are so much alike its scary. both were like a sneeze in the face of a hurricane at test level. its not bias its just a plain fact. i doubt jake will ever trust lambie again and both peter  and meyer have given up on him. it says a lit really that frans a specialust 12 totally outclassed lambie, last year butch made him looked like a roadkill fraggle, a hasbeen butch! couldnt outgun michallak either and even pienaar lookrd better, so did pitgieter and bosman. the kid is just a bit below average and everyone has given up on him except the luttle schoolgurl fanboys below average

Uh-oh, I thought this might happen . . . the mere mention of Lambie has set Gimp off again and the poor chap can't string a coherent sentence together.

Good thing he's not angry or anything . . .