How the mongs got exposed once again on this site

During the game on Saturday I said the two kicks that resulted in two tries of the Chiefs were atrociously poor.   I went on to state clearly that during halftime the rep of the coaches said that the kicks of he relevant nature will not be made after discussion with the players during halftime.   No such kicks were in fact made after halftime.
However, there were continuous attacks on me for saying the kicks were poor and the kicks description ranges from decent to good - they denied that the kicks were bad and blamed poor follow-ups as the reason for the subsequent defensive flaws.   It was clear that the problem was not with the follow-ups since that is effectively impossible when the kicks are too far ahead of where the potential follow-ups were supposed to have happened.   The follow-up under such circumstances maintaining a proper defensive line is impossible and a dream by mongs to be possible.   it happens game after game and their dreams have never been realized.
The effect of the kicks is inevitable - a good possibility for the recipients to line up an attacking line and that the Chiefs did brilliantly in that game.  
That was followed up in an article quoted elsewhere on this site calling the two kicks poor and useless. 
However, the coaching staff and Mallett are according to our lo cal mongs  idiots who do not realize the wonders attached to kicks without regard to the quality of kicks.   For them the kicking game and defense is all that counts.
They obviously do not realize that the Bulls demise this year also flows from a dismal kick and chase game    For them that game is all that counts.  
We all now know how misleading and false the interpretations of the mongs are - beware they specialize in false match descriptions and deceit when it comes to dealing with match situations.    

So how many new threads are you going to start about this? I see there's not much interest in the other one you started. I wonder why? 
Perhaps it is because all parties have already made their points and explained their views on the issue in the original thread. There's really little else left to say, most people here are intelligent enough to make up their own minds on where they stand on the issue. 
It's only you who feel that you need to start multiple threads in order to try and prove yourself right, every time forcing these endless, boring repeats of views you already stated elsewhere on the board members. It must be hell to still be so desperate for recognition at your ripe old age.

 Which other thread have I started - mong number 2?
Too cowardly to admit that as per normal you are writing BS on the site?

The one about Mallett's comments on the Stormers game, which was little more than a thinly veiled excuse to bring up the issue about the kicks yet again.
"When I stated that the two kicks referred to by Mallett were indeed poor kicks three of our "site experts" went bananas.   They claimed that the kicks were decent and even good.    Nothing else could be expected from them - they always maintained in the past that the only roles of backlines is to defend and kick balls away.   They are totally unable to evaluate the quality of kicks. 
From their rantings in the past it is clear that scoring of tries is not important in games and they carry on as if the real game relates to kicking of balls.   No wonder they are constantly supporting kicking duds like the Steyns. "

 I thought ou Makkie was gunna show Beandork in his drawers for us to larrf at !

 "However, there were continuous attacks on me..........."
Sniff sniff....

Mike, the two kicks were too far ahead and that resulted in the Stormers being put under pressure. I agree with that part of your statement, but I don't agree with this whole anti-kicking crusade that you are on. Both kicks you refer to were executed badly, and that is what created the pressure. Had they been kicked out, or if the ball had bounced differently, or if they weren't kicked as far and the chasing players had managed to regather possession, we would not be having this discussion. In other words, the kick option was on, the kicks were just poorly executed. In today's game with rush defense basically being standard, tactical kicking can be very effective due to the defensive lines being so shallow. 
As for your general issue with kicking. If anything the NZ teams kick more than we do. It is a useful part of any rugby teams attacking and defensive arsenal. The best "running" sides in the world use kicks to great attacking success. 
1) Stop obsessing about kicking in general. M Steyn and F Steyn are no longer in the SA rugby frame, so please just let it go.2) If you can't see that a well executed kick is often the best option under a variety of circumstances, then I think it is you that knows nothing about rugby, and not the ones you accuse of the same.    

See Mike, Bluebok just showed you how to state an opinion clearly and simply without getting into this petty "I'm right, everyone else are idiots" nonsense. 

Bluebok just have ou Maaikie a lesson in explanation. ??????

 Bluebok
I have stated repeatedly in the past that kicking is an integral part of rugby - my only problem is with aimless kicks with no real value to the team - hence the problem is with the quality of kicks .    I am all for strategic kicking - but do regard kicking as a variation - not the alpha and omega of the game as stated far too frequently by the three mongs.   They were caught out this time around and I will not relent in this case.
Lets get down to facts - lets accept that properly executed kicks is a rarity amongst SA team half-backs.   I would favour serious coaching with regard to making of kicks and some ideas about when and where to kick.   Maybe - since Carter will be jobless pretty soon - why not get him to do that job for us?
  

 Foeitog - two mongs thinking Blueboks support their argument about the two atrocious kicks they were defending.   Can't you read his starting sentence?
I clarified the issue as to a positive approach to kicking and how it should be solved.   I state that clearly in the past - so there should not be uncertainty about that.   It is only the mongs that cannot differentiate between quality kicks and BS and who advertise the kicking game as the only one in town.  

And the lying continues. Where do I give any indication that I think Bluebok supports my argument? 
The very essence of his post is the fact that he posted an opposing opinion to mine without being petty about viewing things differently. That's what I tried to point out to you in my response to his post. 
God, I forgot how painful it is having a conversation with someone as dishonest and thick as you. Anyway, I'm done with this topic.

Come now mong number 2 - the argument is about two kicks you called good and I called poor,   That does not show dishonesty - it shows an absolute lack of rugby knowledge by you and how rugby illiterate you are.   You run for cover because that rugby knowledge deficiency has been exposed once again. 
You did not defend your "good  kicks" tirade - so can I accept that you have at last realized you have made an absolute fool of yourself - once again?   .  

Unlike you I have no desire to endlessly repeat myself. All my thoughts on the issue are available in detail in the thread Line speed the key for the Stormers... 
I have nothing more to say about it. Anyone is free to agree or disagree. 

 Mike it is very clear you won this debate hands down! 

So HasBeen I assume you believe Duvenage should not have made his kick to the corner at minute 39? ... And I suppose Kolbe shouldn't have tried the speculative kick ahead, regathered by Leyts before his sensational offload? ... 'Aimless kicks' only led directly to 2 of the Stormers tries

So mong no 1 is trying to divert attention away from his BS of the past weekend.  Nobody say kicks are not acceptable - but they must be objective and quality kicks must be part of the game.   He called the two kicks under discussion "decent kicks" and now wants to hide his exposure as a mong by diverting attention away from that discussion.  
What a useless rugby illiterate mong!!!   Why not admit for the umpteenth time your comments on this site was exposed as BS and then go and hide in shame?    

Two kicks that resulted in tries....Lyingstein on the ropes again. Did Mallett comment on those.........bwaaaaaaaahahaha......LMAOFY!

 He did Mong and he refuted  your BS comprehensively and that is the point.    For the umpteenth time you proved that you know zero about rugby.   Sad to see that fraudulent descriptions by you are used to hide  your BS. 
According to you,  you are never wrong - everyone else is - showing that you are idiotic.   Nobody should ever credit you with making real and objective rugby assessments because you are such an idiotic asshole spouting falsehoods.         

Why so bitter Tokkie....no more gifts down in Riversdale?

 I find it hard to be critical of a team that played fantastically, IMO it is knit-picking to be critical. We have on tape what must be the best tries of the season so far & maybe these will prove to be the best for the entire season. Enjoy!

Agreed.

 clevermike.....time to go fishing guy.
It is very relaxing and u get to go outdoors.I would suggest that u catch and release due to the contaminants in SA waters though.
Enjoy the experience.