How the hype system really works

I was going through the Team of the Week selection on Rugby 365 and found to my amazement that the three scribes involved picked Vermeulen as the no8 on Saturday.

He was not even close - he was outplayed by the following:-

*   Naisarani of the Rebels

*   Ardie Savea of the Hurricanes

*   Rahboni Warren Vosayaco of the Sunwolves

*     Angus Scott-Young of the Crusaders

*     Coetzee of the Stoirmers

*     Du Peez of the Sharks

*     Ortego Desio of the Jaguiares

*     Akira Ioane of the Blues

How they got to the Vermeulen rating only they would know.   Vermeulen was largely invisible in most of the game and  his hype story just prove how easy it is for hype to take over from actual performance assessments.   Hype is when players are credited with top performance in the absence of fact.       

Vermeulen is a war horse. He varies his game sometimes playing in the tight loose and sometimes out wide - like a number 8 should do.  The Lions packed got bullied over the weekend. 

Dupeez had his arse handed to him, the Sharks were pathetic over the weekend. Even a past it Vermeulen is much better than this donkey.  Dupeez is another Alberts, or worse another Diesel. All brawn, not brain. 

In the first 2 tests against England last year, Vermeulen was easily the best player on the field. 

SB

In the third test he went AWOL and then skipped playing in The Rugby Championship series,   he was so-so in the EOYT tests.

I have my doubts about Vermeulen after his 2015 neck injury - he si mnot the same player heused to be and  at 33 he is not  really performing anymore. 

Mozart

Who are you referring to in your jargon above?   I could only discern total lack of facts - but then I do not know which player you are busy denigrating above.     

That is pretty accur ate Moz. 

All we need is the Currie Cup connection. 

Mozart

I asked you a logical question - why not answer it?

Secondly - I was amazed about how Vermeulen managed to be as nondescript and absent from view as he was in that game?    I tried to follow him all the time because I want to see whether he was any good in he game and found it very hard to do so because he went missing for long stretches of time during the match.   

His contribution was only noticeable once when he got the ball a meter out and manage to score a try,   I do not think he made any really positive contribution to the game otherwise as typified by the fact that he buggered up in one line-out costing a line out loss from a Bull's throw-in.        

He made some strong ruck cleans. One very big ruck clean in the Bulls 22. 

He made what?  Did he cause a possession turnover in that ruck?   Have not seen a turnover made through involvement of Vermeulen - so is that just another of your routine  fairy tales?

Ruck clean, Einfaltspinsel. You can't ruck clean a turnover. 

Mozart

So you refer to Goosen here,   A long list of fabrications again - please stick to facts.  Gppsen played 5 games in the under 20 side in 2011 amd was the second highest point scorer in the competition.   England  beat SA 26-20 in that series  and if that is a horrible loss it is total BS - sad to say.

Goosen did play for the Cheetahs in 2012 in Super Rugby and was bys ome distance the ebst Cheetahs player that year. Your point 4 is total nonsense I am afraid,

Then there was the rather difficult situation for Meyer in the RC in 2012.   Morne Steyn collapsed in a heap in the tests he played in and he was forced to get rid of Morne and he had two choices only available - Goosen and Jantjies,   He picked Goosen at flyhalf and the team beat Australia by the second biggest margin ever and when picked against the AB's the next week he got injured after 10 minutes.   There was no hype reason for Goosen's  selection which basically was caused by the total collapse and failure of Morne ar flyhalf,

The rest of your comments stinks as well,   Total garbage I am afraid.   Just a few points - Racing Metro had had no SA connections other than Frans Steyn playing for them on a three year contract.  They could not get rid of him fast enough at the expiry of his contract and his subsequent history playing for the Springboks and the Sharks gave a true reason for getting rid of a slob.   Despite that shocker Racing contracted Goosen for three years and after being the French player of the year in 2016  they made him a huge offer for a further four year contract,   Goosen wanted to get out of the extended contract and there was a long break in him playing until Montpellier bought him out by paying Racing near to $2 million.

Amazingly - he is with Montpellier now and they have both fat Fransie and Aaron Cruden on contract,  They must be utter fools to pay that kind of money for a flop.

I am sorry to differ - but the above comments of yours on Goosen shows a degree of prejudice that makes your comments utterly ridiculous and totally devoid of facts.           

Silly Billy 

Most forwards bar Matfield, Alberts and lately Mostert  routinely gets involved in rucks and breakdown situations.  In both cases to claim credit for that only counts when it leads to  possession turnovers,  Otherwise it is a normally expected activity.

Your total ignorance is shining through totally in this case as well,  

"

Hall Of Fame

34534 posts

Mozart

So you refer to Goosen here,   A long list of fabrications again - please stick to facts.

Yeah, maybe we should stick to the facts. Better still, let's cut all the BS and check what has been happening to the new reinvented Wunderkind, Goosen, so far. 

Unfortunately for old Hangpram here, he is sitting with an interesting conundrum. 

He routinely blames player who, let's say, he does not have a particular affinity to, for losses, just as he routinely attributes wins to players who, let's say, he does have a particular affinity to. 

Why is that of any particular interest, he may ask? Easy, because both the Wunderkind and Frans Steyn play for Montpelier.

These are the results for Montpelier (M) so far, from the last game in the season to the first ("in" means player played in the game and "out" means player did not take part in the game and "b" means player was on the bench and number in brackets denotes position of player in the game) :

1. M v Bordeaux. Win. Steyn (12)  in.  Goosen out.

2. Toulouse v M. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen out.

3. M v USA Perpignan. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (13) in.

4. La Rochelle v M. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (10) in.

5. Edinburgh v M. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen out.

6. M v Newcastle. Win. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (10) in. Goosen got a yellow card. 

7. M v Lyon. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (10) in.

8. M v Pau. Win. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (10) in.

9. Grenoble v M. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (10) in.

10. M v Toulon. Win. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (10) in.

11. Toulon v M. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (10) in.

12. M v Clermont. Lose. Steyn (15) in. Goosen (13) in.

13. Agen v M. Win. Steyn (15) in. Goosen out.

14. M v Racing 92. Lose. Steyn out. Goosen out.

15. Stade Francais v M. Lose. Steyn out. Goosen out. But there was another Steyn on the field. For the winning side. Hahaha.

16. Newcastle v Montpelier. Lose. Steyn out. Goosen out.

17. M v Edinburgh. Win. Steyn out. Goosen out.

18. M v Toulon. Win. Steyn out. Goosen (10) in.

19. Perpignan v M. Win. Steyn out. Goosen (10) in.

Listen stupid - I just corrected the BS Mozart wrote and never referred to the present year results of Montpellier.   So what was Montpellier's record when Fat Fransie and  Cruden played for them at flyhal;f.   

I did refer to Fat Fransie because according to you he is a prime top class player.   He flopped at flyhalf in the past at Montpellier and also  for all the teams he played for.   Fransie was supposed to be a flyhalf or center.   He flopped in both positions and with rare exception Montpellier is using him lately at full back,    

So how do you compare players in two entirely different positions playing for a team and then compare the team win-loss record as a means to compare their performances.   That is weird only the most stupid rugby performance evaluators  will never use that -

*    because  it really makes zero sense - rugby is a team sport and not an individual sport; and

*    even then it is only worse to compare two players playing in totally different positions for the team.   

I do not find it funny at all - it may be funny for im beciles like you - but made no sense from a rugby perspective.             

I did not start the BS comparisons you spouted in the first instance and try and compare the incomparable for evaluation purposes - only a complete moron will come up with what you came up with above.

Not got the message yet - brain-deficient dunce/      

Mozart

Please do not join the ranks of the idiots - you must certainly be better-informed  of rugby evaluation than  they are.    Any real  rugby expert will never venture in the field of Ceradunce idiocy the way he did above.       

No Mozart  BS never blows anybody out of the water.   Any real experts will tell you that such comparisons in a team game is absolutely useless and in fact stupid.     

Lügnerin is very sloppy. Will he learn from this one? 

To Spies' credit, he turned into a very good player, but not for the reasons he was hyped. He became fundamentally sound. That's something most of the players on that list lack, fundamentals. It's sort of like those running quarterbacks in the NFL: athletes who will revolutionise the position and take the game by storm. They are st udied and exposed, because of a lack of fundamentals. They most commonly lack the ability to read the game. Athletically superior athletes at junior levels don't need these attributes, at the pro level it is a must. That said, the likes of Lambie were never standout players at junior level and not particularly impressive athletes. You get guys like Serfontein who reach a point where they can't physically compete. He had some good tests at 13, but there were many moments where he was exposed, particularly at 12 where he was run over and dragged around. 

The real sickness in SA teams are that they are saddled by players who were totally useless because they were not able to meet even basic performance  requirements as to performance,   because they were selected based on reputation.   Take for instance  the 2015 WC squad,   

There were at least twelve members who never started in games or started once and failed,   Those who never started played a maximum of   less than 30 minutes playing time in the series and  the rest were never rested,

Ye situation was so bad that when for instance Morne Steyn floppe4d in 2012 and 2014 there were no players with an experience to replace him.   The list is long of such BS happening.  Taje the above list and see why they came into the squad  - not because of hype, but failure of players like the stooges you lot supported.    

 Anyway hype is so poorly interpreted that even if a player is mentioned even once on this site it is hype,   Hype is not that - it is when players are supported without any real basis in the media promoting worthless players.   That is why the despicable Silly Billy can claim that the really useless Meyer  ended up selection of players who were hyped up.

Anyway to get back to the BS Mozart listed above as hype players:-

*    Gelant    There was no hype - Dave mentioned him a few times and he was never deal with in any length on the media as a player.

*     Kriel  - again a case where Fourie turned  up at a Springbok camp in such s state that even Meyer sent him packing and there was a void,  Kriel suddenly became a hyped player because he was  mentioned on site a few times as an alternative - with the media speculating about alternatives also.

*    JJ, Taute, Vorster -,  Vorster was never in the Springbok team, so where his name came from can only be guessed.    Mozart did not mention why they came in -  the useless Frans Steyn was imn such poor physical condition that he got injured and had to be replaced.  Mozart failed to mention De Jongh in that list - he did play in 2012 - but went AWOL in two test matches.   There was nu hype - there was the need to fill an injury induced replacement in the media.  HEAVEN  HELP ANY PLAYER WHO GOT SELECTED AFTER DAVE MENTIONED HIM EVEN ONCE ON THIS SITE  Suddenly the [layer became a hyped players sometimes mentioned in the media as potential alternatives -0 there wasa NO HYPE 

*    Serfontein -  are you lot kidding = he was selected on merit, but was targeted  for criticism for some reason or another - one can only guess that the attacks on him resultedfrpm hoimkeeoing the useless Fat Fransie from being selected.   

*      The rest is total garbage.   Lambie,  De Jager and Du Toit are very highly rated test players.   Goosen had to replace  the totally failing Morne Steyn and became the target of pet hate by idiots like Silly Billy and Dunce - the hardcore of idiots on site.                      

PLEASE NOTE THAT IF A PLAYER IS MENTIONED ON THIS SITE IT CAN NEVER BE HYPE - GO AND FIND  OUT WHAT HYPE REALLY IS, 

Morné actually outplayed Lambie in the WC. Lambie was bamboozled by Oh-No! and couldn't overcome the weakest team in the competition. Morné created at least three scoring opportunities in the brief time he was on. Lambie thought he was Pollard against New Zealand, running it up and got smacked, losing the ball in contact. Not one standout test in his career. 

Lood was exceedingly poor, aside from two runs against Japan. His botched handling blew two key attacking movements deep in Welsh territory. He as physically blown away. The Scots pinned him down in the second half. Not one standout test to date aside from his debut in a blow out win against a poor Scottish side in 2014. 

Steph was nowhere in 2014 or 2015. We've had to wait a few years for him to mature and emerge as a viable test option. Out of the three, in spite of certain limitations, he actually has moments of great play we can reference. 

de Jongh solidified our defence and we were able to form a brick wall that couldn't be broken. Your point is lost as you have absolutely no evidence to support yourself other than the "failed to make a lot of tackles" without showing where he should have made any. Another one of those players that you have launched scathing personal attacks against: The cunt that should have been thrown out at birth instead of the after birth. 

Serfontein was dropped because he was too slow for 13 at the time and was too physically over-powered to be our 12. He was repeatedly run through when the Welsh profited greatly through his channel. Being run over in your 22 for a try is a cause for concern. Especially when this is not an isolated occurrence. I think he is a smart player with good skills, but he wasn't by any means "mysteriously picked on". 

Goosen flunked all of his tests. I had him, correctly, identified as a fullback, but had hoped he'd hold up better defensively. I was wrong. He was ineffective on attack and blown away in every contact situation. He made two key failings in the loss against New Zealand in Dunedin. Every reason to justify criticism exists. You blamed Morné for his shoddy tackle attempt on Nonu which blew the defence wide open and you lied, repeatedly, about him leaving the ruck fringe unprotected. You blamed anyone you could for his mistakes. You also lied about him being run over in our 22 for a try at Ellis Park. 

Silly Billy

I read the first three paragraphs and was shocked to see  that we are dealing here with a total rugby idiot and liar to boot.

No Mozart

The players were not hyped in the media and they became "Hyped" because they were mentioned on site because somebody dared to mention them even with a view to being watched for in future,

Fact is that list of yours betrayed that the players you claimed were hyped in fact were your PET HATE players,   In that you always had the support of the bird brained Silly Billy 0 whose view on players is worthless because of his total lack of knowledge about the game and zero ability about performance evaluation.  I read only about four paragraphs above and it is clear he was as near to braindead as possible before departure from earth,

I can only hope that some expert whom by accident read his stupidity does not die from having a seizure because of uncontrollable laughter.   Silly Billy's record and his insistence on plastics influencing selection is a reflection of total BS on the mind,   

I have NEVER hyped a player on site.  First of all I do things differently and so does Dave.   WE mentioned potential players - but we do not attack present players - especially not those performing well like you do because they keep favourites of yours out of the team.   Silly Billy falls on the same category,   I do not manufacture criticism - and try and make objective assessment,      Essentially I also do not lie and invent things to criticize players/    I can gi ve you a long list of that,   However, in kindness  I call the worst offender Silly Billy - because he does not know enough about ruby and cannot help becoming the board jester.   Tragic really because his comments are so imbecilic it is ultimately not funny.