I watched the Australia - Argentina game

I did not bother which side to win - it was a real pleasure to watch real rugby like the game should be played.  
It would have been a travesty of justice if South Africa went through to be in the final after producing the worst performance of BS I have seen for years on a rugby field.  What the Springboks came up with was not rugby - it was another indication how low our level of competence is in playing of the game.  
What we gave forgotten is that the players of the past brought back by Meyer in their hay-day used the same basic plan as was used yesterday.  They are NOT capable to play any other brand of rugby and cannot adjust to present day conditions - hence the rubbish they dished up yesterday.   
Studio talk after the latest game was that a number of Springboks are going to announce their departure from international rugby after the game on Friday and they would go all out to ensure "they go out in a blaze of glory"  
I do not think they are good enough to create a "blaze of glory" anymore - so we will still see the tommy-rot the coach and the team will come up with on Friday.         
   

 i thought the exact same thing.
the quality of todays game was light years ahead of anything is saw from the boks this tournament.
zero intent from the boks to be anything more than a penalty kick only team.....the all blacks where not to clever either but we gave them the game on a silver platter with the lack of respect we showed the ball

 Ou maaaikie this may represent a turning point where we decide to modernise.Heck the Argies make us look silly when it comes to creativity.

 the world pass us by as long we stick with this style of rugby

 Another bullshit post by an id10T...

The first half reminded of a an error strewn B section Currie Cup or Vodacom cup match. Two tries by Australia against a poor defence in this match, where Argentina missed nearly 30% of all their tackles.

Only after Argentina came back to a deficit of only 7 points through pemalties only, the Aussies started to play test rugby and field position. And THAT that took the game away from a naive and poor Argentinian attack that failed to score a single try.

It was Argentina's worst game this year, poor tackling, 21 turnovers conceded selfish runners on attack.

What a load of crud. Argies played a pretty effective game. Scandalous take by this untruth DUD! 

 Apart from a lot of other things, one thing t hat was clear from the Aus/Arg game is that if DDA and JL are our best centres we are stuffed for some time to come. We do not have any centres, including Fransie and JDV, who would either have the ability to spot the opportunity to throw that long pass that Giteau threw to AAC for his second try, nor the ability to execute the pass in the way that he did. 

 More scandalous nonsense from cerudunce windpomp. They are the best young centre pairing in world rugby! Get a good attack coach in and watch what happens.These two dunces have no clue about context!!!

 Ceradunce and The Trooth Fairy are both re tards with no understanding oif the game of rugby.  There thinking consist of the BS dished up by the Springboks on Saturday as thinking rugby.
Then we have the case where Du POreez and Meyer decided to go back to the 2000 playing style f the Bulls and fail to understand that it is unworkable hogwash.  The Village Idiot does not realize a player cannot perform without seeing the ball.   
Instead of going to the core of the problem and identifying why the Springboks game on Saturday was totally destructive of rugby as a game, the two village idiots try to decry the quality of the game between played today and to launch their BS against the Springbok center pairing     

 Beeno1
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 17705RE: I watched the Australia - Argentina game 
October 25, 2015, 22:32:01

 More scandalous nonsense from cerudunce windpomp. They are the best young centre pairing in world rugby! 

Dream on sunshine. One day you might wake up in the real world.............. or maybe you won't. Most p robably the latter.

 Ceradunce
So Kriel and De Allende are blamed for the Sh!it dished up as rugby by Du Preez, Burger and Matfield - to name three specific players - on Saturday.      

I missed the first half, but from what I saw in the second Argentina played an exciting but unstructured game. They constantly turned over the ball with wild passes or panicky offloads, or players isolating themselves just as they came within striking distance. They have a wonderful skill set though and I'm sure they will learn to better manage the way they play. At the moment they're a little naive, the players perhaps somewhat selfish and they try to play too quickly at times. Slowing things down with a ruck here and there instead of a forced pass or offload and they may well have broken the Oz defense, which was scrambling at times.

 Hopefully the Argies showed up some of the weaknesses of the Ozzie. Several of the pool game did but I have to admit the Ozzie team is a very good one & they will be tough to beat. Can the final be any more nerve racking than the game against the Boks?

 StupidMaaik,

Did I for one moment support Heyneke Meyer's idiotic game-plan and selections... NO!
Did I criticise the Bulletjie rugby dished up by Argentina... YES!

You get bulletjie rugby, supported by planks like you and Saffex, where all is about favourites and individuals. Running at all costs and it should look pretty... No matter how many times you turn the ball over in stupid play (21 times by Arg), just as long as they run around like headless chickens.

On the other hand, you get Heyneke Meyer dinosaur rugby, where overweight trucks run into walls of defenders and if they fall one metre forward as the get tackled, they rejoice because they "dominated the collision".

Then you get common sensible rugby as played by the All Blacks. Where you have a great conductor at flyhalf, skilled players while the embrace the principles of the game as it has always been. (And even Australia played common sense rugby in the last 20 minutes of this match, when they realised they needed to WIN.)

But you are obviously too thick to understand that there should be a balance to the game. Just like Meyer is too thick to understand that there should be a balance. Heyneke tried the StupidMaaik way of playing in the RC and it failed miserably. Then he resorted to the ultra conservative kick and hope plus crashball bullsh.it and it failed again. A less spectacular failure, but still a failure...

No Meyer should not be there. He does not have the mental toughness needed for the job. He tried to please the idiot fans like you. He does not believe in himself, so how will any player under him believe in him. Meyer is a weak minded loser. Pretty much like you.

 The Trooth Fairy
The thick planks are some members of this site - you included - who supported Meyer all out in the game to be played by the Springboks and now suddenly got wise to the fact that the plan he used does not work.
Would Morne Steyn have made a difference - no he would not.  Did Matfield improved the game after he came on on Saturday - no he buggered up badly.
You dolts think that when we asked for sensible rugby - as against the Bulls model practised by Meyer that we only want a passing game (what you call "Running at all costs and it should look pretty")   Nobody  supports such idiocy - what we support is a varied game where the game is not dictated by a game plan that cannot be varied and where execution is poor.
The forwards should be competitive and to use repetitively the blindside flank as a flyhalf is lunacy.  However, that is what happened in our case to the Springboks - total non-thinking rugby executed poorly.   That is what you preached to us before.  Now suddenly you do not support the game plan used.   What a joke - plank extraordinaire.  
  

Agreed Truth. Even the Boks' ultra conservative game against Wales resulted in 16 turnovers. Predictable channel 1 bashing is just as big a turnover risk as all out attack. The defence can simply wait for the isolated tank to run into them with a pilferer on the shoulder of the tackler, and there goes your possession before you have even tried to do something constructive. Same thing happened against NZ in the last minute when again we sent single runners into a wall of tacklers and, no surprise, spilled the ball after a few goes. If we don't learn that this nonsense doesn't work, we won't progress.

 "That is what you preached to us before.  Now suddenly you do not support the game plan used.   What a joke - plank extraordinaire. "

Ha ha ha ha... Keeping true to form with lying I see. Nothing new....

 Surprising how the members who supported Meyer all out before and support his concept of Stampkar rugby - now suddenly turns around and support what some of us pleaded for before - and now has the audacity to claim that we have been wrong all along and they have been right.    To prove that they assumed as acceptable everything Dave and I stated on the site - and give their normal stupid criticism to say we have been wrong all along.  Stupids will NEVER ever learn anything about rugby - they support stupidity and then depending on the result start trying to be wise.
         
  

Supposition is a bitch... biting YOU in the arse!

I have never supported "stampkar" rugby and never will.

Just like I will NEVER support the style of play you propose. Your analysis is just to superficial and your ideas just to moronic to implement at any level.

The day that you achieve any level of success as a coach, I might take notice of a point or two that you may make.

Has anyone seen Desert Fox lately? Rumor has it he is trying to avoid crows & barking dogs & various other assorted threats Come to think of it his mate Mozart is also not very present lately. No doubt they will proclaim victory.

So let me get this straight, The_Truth and Clevermike, You both agree that Meyer must go, and you both dislike his conservative game plan....please tell me, what are you two arguing about?  

 bluebok
Nothing really - The Trooth Fairy argued viciously in favour of Meyer, Morne steyn, Victor Matfield, etc in the past and condemned Dave and myself for suggesting a more dynamic game with variations to ensure playing a comprehensive rugby form of the game.
Now suddenly she had assume the same ideas as we had all along - but suggest that we are wrong in what we advocated originally .   Really a joke.    

 Bluebok,

It's easy... Mike prefers the airy-fairy throw the ball around like the pathetic Argentinians did in the first half of their game, while I prefer the common sense balanced approach the All Blacks play. Also the common sense approach, the Australian used in the final 20 minutes of their match. There is a HUGE difference between those approaches.

I prefer a decision making flyhalf that can pass accurately and when he needs to kick, is able to kick the ball further than 15m. He prefers one that looks dangerous while he also crashes into a wall of defenders, or isolates himself when going into contact. If you just changed the name of the first receiver from Schalk (who is too old) to Handre, Mike would be out of his skin! Even though both of them play exactly the same....

I think that sums up the differences.

 clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 20271RE: I watched the Australia - Argentina game 
October 26, 2015, 06:05:38

 Ceradunce

So Kriel and De Allende are blamed for the Sh!it dished up as rugby by Du Preez, Burger and Matfield - to name three specific players - on Saturday.      

Did I say that? Nope. I didn't.  Having said that, I have noticed that you chose to include Loodvoet's moffie attempt at a tackle that gifted the All Blacks a try, among the "sh!t" that was dished up. Loodvoet's pathetic line-out play has also apparently zipped past you. Oh wait, you will have an excuse for the line-out play but I will not mention it. I will wait for you to do  that yourself.
Just to get things straight. Your first assumption was that I went out on an attack against your love-child, De Allende again. Fact is that you should consider revisiting my remark and think carefully what I was saying. I said that SA, as a whole, do not have class centres. Attack that argument and not me or the other players because that was essentially what I said. Our quality of our centres is what is I was talking about. Not Matfield, FDP, Os du Randt, Willie Toweel, Elvis Presley or the Slovakian Potato Issue.

 Balls - you believe in fairy tales dreamed up by yourself on what Dave and I suggested and is clueless about the kicking game as well the carrying game.  A kicked ball is only effective when it is accurate and the opposing catcher is under pressure - so kicks need to be accurate and not only based on distance.
Morne was always sh!t because he was clueless about variation of the game - could not read games and was robotic in the extreme.  Pollard at least can think and take decisions - Morne had to be told in advance what is required from him and did not realize when a change was necessary. The worst flyhalf in the past 50 years prize - Morne wins by a distance. 
  
      

 "Then you get common sensible rugby as played by the All Blacks. Where you have a great conductor at flyhalf, skilled players while the embrace the principles of the game as it has always been. (And even Australia played common sense rugby in the last 20 minutes of this match, when they realised they needed to WIN.)"
Apart from decent centres, that is something else we do not have in SA. Of course ou Tokkie has come up with this beauty....:
"Would Morne Steyn have made a difference - no he would not..........."

Fact is that we will never know, would we ou NostraTokkie. My own opinion is that if there is one mistake that HM made, it was to chuck MS on the rubbish dump. I think that he needed him in this RWC competition. Pollard is not the real deal. Not now, and I am wondering if he will  ever develop into one . I think  that he is just another average FH. Just like Lambie and Goosen.

 Stupid idiot Ceradunce
You still do not realize you a r s e from your elbow.   When we referred to backline play we referred to the AB and Wallaby game - now suddenly it is the norm used by the lying Trooth Fairy and you fell for it.  
You do not know what is going on with Pollard either - what was he instructed to do by the clueless Meyer.   You were all for Meyer all the time and now suddenly you agree with the Trooth Fairy - who attacked Pollard, because he wanted Morne as flyhalf.   
You are one of the most stupid members of this site - so keep quiet before your idiocy is fully exposed.            

Creativity? There is problem solving; strategy and tactics. These are thinking things, and things which New Zealand and Australia are very much better at. South Africans are overly emotional, and think that if they feel things they can feel their way to unlocking defences, it helps in their minds if they do this with a big, fat, vacant smile on their faces! 

 The ABs played the game much tighter than Oz or the ABS. And the running rugby Oz did was off Argentinian turnovers. Neither Oz nor NZ ran the ball much in their own halves, except off turnovers.
The ABs  did the same up and unders off our long kicks....but Smith managed to snaffle a lot of them back. They kicked as much as we did, seven more times in fact. But the percentage was much lower because they had so much possession.
The truth is Pollard made some nice half breaks and one very nice kick and regather....there was nobody to take an offload. Where were Allende and Kriel?
Our centre play in both playoffs was a bust. A guy like Bosch would be a vast improvement on Kriel. If you don't have centres who are running lines at pace, nothing is going to happen and nothing did.47Kicks from hand40

 clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 20275RE: I watched the Australia - Argentina game 
October 26, 2015, 12:35:50

 Stupid idiot Ceradunce

You still do not realize you a r s e from your elbow.   When we referred to backline play we referred to the AB and Wallaby game - now suddenly it is the norm used by the lying Trooth Fairy and you fell for it.  [Whoosh]
You do not know what is going on with Pollard either - what was he instructed to do by the clueless Meyer.  [Neither do you ] You were all for Meyer all the time and now suddenly you agree with the Trooth Fairy - who attacked Pollard, because he wanted Morne as flyhalf. [I have had my doubts in Polard for ages and I have said that on many occasions.]
You are one of the most stupid members of this site - so keep quiet before your idiocy is fully exposed.  [FO]