STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
24 Mar 2014, 12:53#2
There are games where the Bulls scrum very, very well and others, as you say, where they capitulate. It's very difficult to predict when they'll hit their straps but most of the time they are not very threatening. It's been that way for a very long time. The Sharks were like that just before Jake turned up, they had a big Bok scrum that were routinely handled by supposedly inferior scrums. I think it's an attitude and technique thing. The Bulls obviously don't place much emphasis on the scrum in my opinion, it's all about the lineout and mauls. It's a pity because a stronger more consistent scrum would make them virtually unplayable.
sharkbok
Captain23,297 posts
sharkbokCaptain23,297 posts
24 Mar 2014, 13:34#3
It is surprising that the Sharks did not target the scrum more and try avoid lineouts more.
If they kept the ball in hand and passing instead of kicking, it would have meant more knock on's, but they were winning penalties and putting the Bulls under severe pressure at scrum time so that would have been allright.
Instead they played right into the Bulls hands with a kicking territorial game where Matfield was calling the lineout and the Sharks were getting killed.
The Bulls could beat many teams in the SuperXV by just kicking the ball out all of the time, because they win so many of their opponents throws, or their opposition just gets totally crap ball under pressure.
As soon as Matfield left the park, the Sharks lineouts started to improve but by then it was pre tty much over.
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
24 Mar 2014, 14:50#5
JJ and Serfontein have done nothing, either as a collective or individually.
@Sharkbok: It's the way the game goes. You have to get out of your half, it's non-negotiable. It's just unfortunate that the Bulls can make that very difficult for you. The alternative is to run your way 60 meters and that really isn't very practical. After four phases the defence is strong again and you end up conceding turnovers in the wrong part of the field or penalties.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
24 Mar 2014, 14:57#6
Sun your pathetic prejudice shines bright.....let me guess, you reckon Frans was better than Serfontein this weekend?
sharkbok
Captain23,297 posts
sharkbokCaptain23,297 posts
24 Mar 2014, 15:03#7
@Sun-Tzu, some well placed up and unders could have also got the Bullls to knock the ball on more, and get more scrums to the Sharks. From the ensuing scrums, and penalties - Frans Steyn could have converted more penalties.
The chases and kicks were poor after Lambie left.
It is pointless kicking the ball out against Matfield's lineout, and the Bulls now also have a flyhalf that is kicking very well for distance touch finders.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Mar 2014, 22:34#8
Face it Frans was much more influential than Serfontein and Sithole was better than JJ. By simply deduction one has to conclude the Bools pair sucked again.These guys can't even outplay S15 newbies....how the hell are they going to play international centres.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
25 Mar 2014, 11:58#10
Mozart
Props are as good as the support they get from their locks. When Matfield came off the bench in the first two games - the Bulls scrum deteriorated. You mention Willemse - yet you keep silent of Matfield - whose support in scrumming seems to be seriously defective.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
25 Mar 2014, 21:27#12
Mozart
Please explain - how did this thread turned over from what was started to Francois Steyn?
Why did you not respond to the issue of Matfield in scrumming and the fact that I said when he came on from the bench in two games the Bulls scrum deteriorated? Is Matfield not top blame for the poor scrumming you referred to?
Back to Steyn - although there is evidence of one good tackle, his defense ranged from average to very poor. The "some big hits" you stated must have been figments of your imagination. Any player who missed 25% of all tackle attempts in a game is NEVER a solid defender. And his strength in securing balls resulted in a penalty straight in front of the polls - converted by Pollard and killing any chance of getting the Sharks a potential win - remote as it was in any event.
Steyn much more influential than Serfontein - what a joke. Other than kicking at goal - Steyn did squat of any importance in the game. He was in some ways poor and his performance in the last game was an insult to the game of rugby. Losing possession - kicking balls away aimlessly and only being handing over possession to the Bulls are typical cases of poor game performance. Influential - what a joke.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
25 Mar 2014, 22:33#14
Mizart
Matfireld has no grunt in scrums and neither has Hattingh. In any event Hattingh at times played as a loosie for the Bulls - so what does it prove about his scrumming prowess? The scrum you refereed to was not the first one the Bulls scrumming was suspect - so the fact you mentioned was not a variation - it was a constant. So what is the point?
What was evident in the two games Matfield came from the bench - the Bulls scrumming became much poorer.
Matfield's role in scrumming is seriously suspect and that is a fact.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 Mar 2014, 23:01#15
That's a fact....how convenient. You just repeat a silly assertion promulgated by anti Matfield types. Here's a fact, Matfield's side of the scrum has never been weaker through all his tests. Many were looking for that, nobody ever made their case. And that's a fact.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
25 Mar 2014, 23:10#16
Mozart
Talking about years ago - what is the position at present? The only thing i questioned when he was playing for the Springboks and frustrated me no end was the fact that he was moonlighting in the back line far too often.
I certainly did not question his scrumming prowess then = but I do it now.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
25 Mar 2014, 23:33#17
Oh I see....he was a good scrummager in 2011... But now he can't scrum. He can run, he can jump, but he can't scrum. Got it.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
25 Mar 2014, 23:44#18
Sorry Moz, Frans had a very quiet game.......as for Sithole's metres, they were after he was put into space and never had to beat a single defender.......Coenie could have done the same.......his metres involved no skill at all.
Nope there was no skill in JJ's try apart from picking up the misguided pass. My point is more that your take on Sithole being better than JJ on the day is absolute hogwash, much like Frans outplaying Jan......its simply not true........not even close
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Mar 2014, 00:26#19
Dave you are dancing on the head of a pin. It's time for either JJ or Serfontein to make just one break like those made by Jean and de Jongh this weekend. Surely even you must have a sense that they have been toothless.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 Mar 2014, 00:36#20
Nope JJ and Serfontein have been as good as they could be.......no better or worse than Jean or Frans.
de Jongh never made a break, he got the ball close to the line and handed off a little guy
Jean's breaks have been no better than JJ's or Serfonteins
Fact is the centres are getting little activity......to point fingers at JJ and Serfontein when not a single SA centre has shone is laughable. Making an impression in modern day rugby for a centre is a tough ask.
The day Jean and Frans stand out way ahead of JJ and Serfontein, is the day I start taking your takes seriously
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Mar 2014, 02:43#21
Actually in 10 minutes on the park, de Jongh made a clean break from behind his line and then broke a tackle to score. If you don't believe me, here are the stats:
(R)de Jongh1/050/2/22713101/10/000/0
Three defenders beaten and one clean break...in 10 minutes on the park...in two runs
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Mar 2014, 05:41#22
Mozart
Back to Matfield - the last game he played before his return he was at the age of 34 - he is now 36. In between he never played a match. Whether you like it or not - advancing age impact on performances and there is no comparison between Matfield as a Springbok and Matfield now.
By the way - you are =
* quick to use De Jongh's stats from ESPN; but* equally quick to ignore the stats of Francois Steyn when it reflects his atrociously poor performances in general play.
Also since you quote De Jongh's stats - how do you account for him making 1 tackle and missing 1 - especially since his defense is seriously suspect?
Please explain your selective application of ESPN stats as well .
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 Mar 2014, 05:57#23
I Don't know how they do things in the Natal Provincial Administration, but in most other places if you are told de Jongh made no breaks, you post de Jongh's stats....not those of Francois Steyn. Are you following the bouncing ball?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 Mar 2014, 06:21#24
Mozart
Bullshit - I never worked for the Natal Provincial Administration - and I told you that before - so do not try to sidetrack the issue the way you did.
I( never queried De Jongh's stats as well - I referred toi his defense - who still seems to be questionable - nothing else.
I asked you a straight question - I asked you why are you so quick to post De Jongh's stats and accept those as factual - while in Steyn' s case you obviously refuse to accept the stats.
A plain and simple question -are you following the bouncing ball?
