Hype Train

It's the one Oom Mike's been waiting for.

Just kidding Oom, does look good though.

He is probably the best of the new Boks this year. Very talented player. 

No SB

He did not get more game time because he had I very good game - his first test - and then went backwards rapidly.  Other than his first test he was average in two tests (one in the starting line-up and one coming from the bench) and in all the other tests he was to put it mildly sub-standard/poor.

That means he was not good enough to start in tests and I think he is very likely to miss selection to the test squads next year.   By the way - Etzebeth was good in his first test after injury and then went into hibernation as well.   

Fact is I would rather have Schickerling at no 4 lock than either of the under-performing Etzebeth and the worse Snyman.   Etzebeth must be careful - reputation cannot trump non-performance permanently.      

Just like Van Staden was Mike's answer to Louw...only to disappear from the scene completely after an anonymous 40 minutes against Australia. His name hasn't even been mentioned again since then, but for just a short while he was The Answer as well .

Snyman had 11 tackles with 1 miss against France. 4 passes, 4 carries for 10m, 1 clean break, 1 defender beaten, 2 offloads. This was called substandard.

In the same game, Steph had 3 passes, 12 runs for 11m, 9 tackles with 2 misses, 1 turnover conceded. This was called a brilliant performance. To add insult to injury, the mauls with Steph as the jumper failed. 

Mike is always delightfully contrary to truth. 

Now listen you three dim twisters of facts you have not evaluated properly the performances of Snyman and you have twisted facts.  Louw was piss-poor in virtually all the tests he played in - he made adequate tackles in one of the tests he played in, but in that test he knocked on a crucial ball handing possession back  to the AB's in the red zone,

O - Glory Hallelujah - he made 3 possession turnovers in all the tests he played in - so he is a world wonder as a loosie.  

He was piss-poor and I stated it clearly and gave adequate reasons for it.   Any player would have been better than that and you used the excuse that Van Staden could have been an improvement on him - he could still be, but had minimal game time. 

Hope all of the hopeless Snyman and Louw would never return to the Springbok squad - they were both useless at best.   Based on Vermeulen/s performances in his last four matches he should be in the same category.    

You can't even get the numbers right. 3 turnovers against France, 2 against the Pumas. 

No BSter he did not make three turnovers against France - he made TWO and he made ONE against the Pumas.   D ream up the rest BSter - no proof whatsoever.  

Is that all that you can come up with in defense of Snyman and Louw anyway?  

SB

I am afraid the 112kg is wrong - the Stormers site gave his weight as 117 kgs, but the last match I saw his weight was  given as 120  kgs.   So I think it is probably somewhere between 117 and 120 kgs.

Fact is the weight has not been updated on various websites - but I believe the Stormers are nearest to the mark. 

AO

Twister - did I evaluate Du Toit's performance in that game anywhere and in any way?   I did not.

Here are the ESPN real stats iro Snyman in the French test:-

 Try assist                        =             0

Balls  passed                   =            1

Balls carried                   =             3

Meters gained               =             10

Line Breaks                     =            0

Defenders  beaten       =             0

Off-loads                         =            0

Balls possession loss     =            0

Tackles made                 =             4

Tackles missed               =             1

Penalties                         =             1

Where did you get the stats you mentioned above from?  I will help you out - it was from the Scotland test and not the French test.  

And  the above remains the figures for a substandard player.