Jake White on coaching

The following from News 24:-

"Former Springbok coach Jake White has suggested that the Bok management team should have more coaches with head coaching experience.

White shared his opinion via a column for the All Out Rugby website on Tuesday where he used the All Blacks as an example.

“At points during the period they won back-to-back World Cups, the All Blacks had Wayne Smith, Steve Hansen and Graham Henry in the same coaching box,” White wrote.

“Those guys weren’t just head coaches of three club sides, they were the best of the best. New Zealand headhunted three international coaches to sit in the box - Smith had been head coach of New Zealand, Hansen had coached Wales and Henry had coached Wales and the British & Irish Lions before heading up the All Blacks.”

White, who coached the Springboks to the Rugby World Cup title in 2007, added that the pecking order to the top should be different in South African rugby.

“Sometimes, having an assistant who has been a head coach at a high level, one who understands the sum of all the parts, is more beneficial than an innovative, but inexperienced assistant. Often what happens in South Africa is you go from being an assistant coach at the Boks to being a Super Rugby franchise head coach, and it should probably be the other way round.”

White added that making Eddie Jones part of his Springbok management team at the 2007 World Cup in France had reaped rewards.

“If South Africa was coached by Rassie, Heyneke Meyer and Nick Mallett, wouldn’t the Boks be in a better position to avoid speed bumps, and win next year’s World Cup?” White argued."

Listen to this guy and he may sound bright until he came up with names.   White knew zero about backline coaching in 2007 and he mentioned Eddie  Jones who effectively saved him in the series.  Now he comes up with three forwards and no backline coach as needed.   

Meyer in particular would be as destructive now as he was in 2012-15 insofar as backline selection and coaching are concerned.   He was on par with Meyer in the disastrous 2014 season with the Sharks  insofar as backline coaching is concerned and was fired as a result.   Then there is Mallett who thrived with the players he received from Du Plessis and then failed when he had to replace in the main the backline players,   

I think the idea may help - provided they keep Meyer as far away as possible from the team and they add a backline expert to the group.   Maybe they should get Carl du Plessis back - he knows more about backline play in his little finger than White, Meyer and even Mallett combined.   

Best thing you can do, Mike ... is to be quiet.

Please ... enough of your nonsense already.

Nothing the Jihadi can't fix....there we go, let's put the World Authority in charge

White knows zero about backline play - proof his coaching spell at the Sharks and  Montpellier. 

He made suggestions with which I am partly in agreement with - but for the absence of a proper backline specialist which makes it clear that he hankers for a game plan of the 2004 to 2007 era.  That makes it as useless an idea as possible.

Jack White has won both junior and senior world cups.

Not too shabby for a clueless idiot wouldn't you say?

You on the other hand can't even differentiate between 7m out and 3m out ... and yet here you are lecturing us all ... again.

A brain dead moron ... totally ignorant ... harping on the past, that he can't seem to remember clearly anyway.

Willem Alberts was a superb rugby player ... as we all saw, thanks to the footage BlueBok brought ... and yet that wasn't evidence enough for you.

Tell me, Mike ... is the sky pink or purple ... we know it's not blue, right?

Stupid man.

You need a home with daily medication to stop you from drooling all over yourself.

too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth....

Jake White would not be happy with a camera man role. 

And you need  to Have a stop to prevent you from spouting ignorant BS on this site,  

A coach who even admitted that he is not capable of coaching backlines through his appointment of Jones and who got fired by two successive Clubs because of that deficiency is suddenly top class.    White is a perfect 10 man rugby coach - but in the end that is not enough anymore and coaches should be able to coach the whole team.

A  loosie who never in his life made a breakdown turnover and could never protect breakdown balls to save his life and ho as not only pace-deficient but also clumsy is a top class loosie.

Blaas my siel.      

A coach who even admitted that he is not capable of coaching backlines through his appointment of Jones...

...is a smart coach. Supplement your weaknesses with experts.

but in the end that is not enough anymore and coaches should be able to coach the whole team.

You think Steve Hansen, for example, coaches the entire All Black team alone?

"All Blacks assistant head coach Ian Foster and forwards coach Mike Cron have recommitted to the national side through to the 2019 Rugby World Cup."

"Ian Foster and Mike Cron continue to make invaluable contributions to the All Blacks and their respective roles in the team's success in recent years can't be underestimated. 'Fosie' has lead the team's back play and attack, which was second to none last year, with the All B lacks topping the international try-scoring table with 80 tries, almost double their nearest rival."

Pakie, don't forget Wayne Smith (retired), who has been credited for playing a big role in the ABs in recent years .... another assistant .....

A rugby team consists of 23 players ... each supposedly a specialist in his position. Together they make up a single team.

They win and lose as a team.

They are even coached by a team ... each supposedly a specialist in one thing or the other. Be it as a forwards coach, a defensive coach, an attacking coach, a scrumming coach, a backline coach ... etc etc ...

Swys played a major role in the Lions success. The Lions would not have contested back to back finals if it were not for his input.

Eddie Jones was called in for a purpose. He fulfilled that purpose ... and we subsequently won the 07 WC. 

Mike struggles to understand the simplest of things when it comes to rugby. He thinks that a single coach should do it all. I'm surprised he hasn't criticized Malcolm Marx for not taking shots at the posts ... or Faff for not scrumming on the tighthead side.

If the poor fool can't even tell the difference between 3m and 7m out, how can we expect him to understand that a good team consist of specialist players ... AND ... specialist coaches.

Jake outscored New Zealand in tries in 2004 head to head (5v3). In 2005 one try less (4v5). In 2006 one try less again (7v8). 2007 was worse at 2v5 but they were 2v2 at full strength.

Jake had no trouble scoring tries against the best team in the world. He didn't need Eddie. In fact he got Eddie fired by beating his Wallaroos three times in one season. He beat Eddie's teams 4 out of 6 tests.

Eddie's greatest contribution to South Africa Rugby was Burger. Burger was a big basher but Eddie turned him into a playmaker with great hands.

So Jake isn't so stupid as you say! I think his list of coaches is pretty great. Think what you want but between them they have great experience. Add Jake into the group and you have all of South Africa's rugby IQ in one room. It's pretty sad that they are hated so badly. Rassi e will be part of that group. I mean if you think of it there was more hate directed towards Jake after he won the world cup than when Coetzee was losing by record margins. That's messed up! I don't get why he or the others like Nick and Meyer are so hated. It's pathetic. 

True Blobbok. Think it's now Scott McLeod doing the defense after Smith's retirement.

Hi Lurker. Good points. What's your take on Pat Bambie and Fat Fransie?

Bambie? I haven't seen him play in ages. I haven't seen Frans play in I don't even know how long. I know Mike hate him and many others. That's why I posted. I couldn't take it any longer. Every damn thread! 

Lurkers. Jerkers, Stalkers…all personalities with personalities that are very unsavourary…and totally unbalanced that float in and out of weak forums that consist of unstable and personal point of views…attacking each other, finding either faults with each other and players with extreme prejudice  and set points of view and not an essence of sense and objectivity…losers and frustrated with the deal in life instead of looking for good and constructive points.

Attacking the very successful NZ’ers, burning with jealousy and creating fiction out of a 3 test series against a fatigued and depleted English side playing at chosen 2 out of 3 venues in JHB and Bloem with high altitude with huge crowd support and scraped in 2 wins against 3 but with a margin of total points scored by a mere 1 point in total…..bahahahahahahaha.

Still a rainbow nation without any colours, an even black is not really a colour and still hoping to find a pot of gold…pathetic…biased, one-sided, shallow folk without any humility which is depicts delusional and ego-centric tendancies of some here.

I think there are decent people here but have become stale , senile and repetitive because of old age and very set in their ways, thinking and habits.

We need younger, stimulated and sensible input but not from those Lurkers stalking in the background…what do you say Saffex and Rooiaas???

The above attacks by CC and Pakie is utter BS by the extreme ignorant.   First of all I never said   White is a stupid coach or anything like that.   I even agreed with White to bring in assistants to help Erasmus.   

Where I disagree with White is concentrating on forward coaching only.   I am not sure how people can doubt the fact that White is a pre-2008 coach when the rules of the game underwent a drastic changes in 2008,   The NZ team introduced a change approach sooner than other teams and have been top ranked in rugby ever since 2010.

Fact is that White since 2008 coached three prominent  franchises.  The first one was the Brumbies - where Larkham was his backline coach - but then breached his contract with the team and returned to SA.   The next one  was with the Sharks - where he effectively got fired after a year and the third was Montpellier - where his two seasons contract was not renewed.   Whether we like it or not - the two terminations (the Sharks and Montpellier) relates to  in the main deficiency in the coaching of backline players.    

It really is worthless to refer to try scoring comparisons before 2008  - such as the reference to 2004 - without referring to the background as to scoring of tries - who scored the tries and was it relating to forwards contribution as against full team contribution..

As to Frans Steyn - I have seen him play in all games in 2014 and 2015.  I also watched the Montpellier games when shown on DSTV.   First of all I do not dislike certain players - I think performance should play a role in team selection and unfortunately Steyn falls short in that regard.     He came back from France in 2012 in a shocking physical condition - he was grossly overweight and was a slow pace player.   It is not I who said Steyn is not a center - it was his coach (Plumtree) who said so.   He had a shocking season for the Sharks in 2014 and made a horribly poor contribution - he in fact was ball hogging and caused more ball possession losses than any other backline player ever in Super Rugby.  He in all matches made 2 line breaks and beat 8 defenders - while he was poor in defense as well.   Fact is De Allende made more line breaks (27) and beat 72 defenders that season and his defense was better than Steyn's.   His latest effort for Montpellier in the final stages of Top 14 this year showed the same deficiencies - so nothing much changed for the better  in his case.       

CleverMike under Jake the backs scored tries. Back in that era of rugby the defense didn't stand so far back so attackers have to pass more accurately and make quicker decisions. It was a better game. Angles of running actually mattered and you could legit play flatter. Now the defense has so much time to watch play unfold that the attacks have to use screens and multiple layers just to create a little bit of deception. The game is more passive and reactive. So you can't  credibly say Jake's Bok experiences as a coach are irrelevant, it's completely relevant! He showed that he can adapt because he implemented a different kind of attack at the Sharks and Brumbies. What's your point then? He has backs scoring tries, he gives them options on attack and he can adapt to what kind of players he has. You don't have an argument here. Playing the game in your opponents half is a basic thing to do and New Zealand do it better than anyone else since 2010. In 2012 Jake took over a team that lost around 17 players and had no core. He found new players from nowhere and had them playing well. He even beat the British lions with a team without its star players. You honestly can't give the man at least a little credit? I don't understand that at all. About the way the game is played I thought it was funny that Coetzee failed because he was trying to have the Bok play like pre ELV teams way too linear. 

What do you think of Peter? You said Jake is the worst coach ever. Peter had forwards as the top try scorers for two and a half years. In 2011 only hookers scored tries in the Tri Nations. 

Whether Frans was the best or not is debatable (why is he still an issue? He is never playing for the Boks ever again!) but he was not the worst. He was at least our third best centre, maybe fourth. Damian has no fundamentals at all. The guy just walks in and out of alignment while ball watching. I'd call Jean out of retirement rather than have Damian again. How bad could he be? He will make tackles and can communicate to his teammates. Damian is a space cadet in the wrong profession. 

World Rugby changed the game rules in  2008 to enhance the game through scoring of tries - why would they make changes if scoring of tries was so more frequent as you indicated above/

The idea was in the main to speed up the  game and for teams to play 15 man rugby as against the ten man game played thus far,   In the case of all SA coaches (White included) it was a foreign idea to play the game according to the new 2008 rules and they went constantly backwards in coaching.   

If White was so good - why was he fired by the Sharks and Montpellier?  

White I give a pass mark in coaching based on the game generally played by all teams before 2008,    De Villiers, Meyer and Coetzee all were dismal failures.  Coetzee tried to play th e White game plan and the level of failure was obvious.              

If White was so good - why was he fired by the Sharks and Montpellier? 

Montpellier - largely because he alienated the local fan base from the team by picking too many South Africans. At one stage the makeup of the Montpellier squad was less than 50% French, causing them to be dubbed the "Langueboks". Dropping home town heroes for foreigners is commercial suicide, stadiums started to empty, Jake had to go.

Sharks - his "dictatorial" style brought him in conflict with the players and management.

I have no great love lost for Jake. After he turned the end of year Barbarians game in 2007 into a pick and go fest, I lost a lot of respect for him. He let his ego ruin the spirit of Barbarian rugby, and the Boks not only lost the game, but embarrassed themselves and I think the crowd present was probably somewhat embarrassed for them as well. As a human being, I think he is extremely dodgy - the kind of guy I wouldn't trust in a business deal or to have my back in a tough situation. As a coach, I respect what he's achieved, especially his ability to very quickly turn failing teams around. Perhaps that is his specialty - the ultimate Mr Fix-it, rather than a long term coach. Too much time goes by and he seems to get in his own way.

@Pakie: The Barbarian test was Coetzee's game. He took charge of the test so he could make a case for being Bok coach. I don't know very much about rugby in France so I can't comment on that but the Sharks ruined themselves not Jake. They had a good thing going but were so lazy that they didn't even want to get up in the mornings. Jake wasn't too strict the Sharks players were too lazy and egotistical. The kind of player power that ruined the Brumbies before Jake arrived. The Australians went a different way and got rid of those players that caused the trouble. The Sharks went a different way and gave the players what they wanted and were rewarded with garbage results ever since. Jake was less attacking with the Sharks because they didn't have the players to do what he did with the Brumbies. Jake has a my way kind of coaching but the best coaches do. The best teams are disciplined. Their coaches are strict. Jake way of playing rugby is sustainable. So much of it we see new Zealand doing.

@CleverMike : The IRB wanted more tries and they thought that pushing the defense back would make that happen. What happened was attacking teams were using fewer back row plays because 8 taking it right up off the back of the scrum was quicker and easier and safer and guaranteed front foot ball. The attack initially had the upper hand but things changed quickly. Teams didn't want to play in their own half more than before, and they were playing more in the inner channels and backs got bigger. The defense has more time to watch play unfold so attacking teams could not play as flat as they did in the past before the ELVs. They had to use screens to create uncertainty which means attacks essentially take place further back. You're seeing more layered attacks CleverMike. Because attacks are developing more slowly the new generation of players have inferior passing skills and can't make decisions as quickly. The game is less physical and teams are more uniform in their gameplay. Especially Super rugby teams. So that's how the ELVs affected the game. The IRB ruined rugby because they are using the rules to enforce a specific style and use refs to police style and not the actual game like they are supposed to. The game is sloppy in the Super rugby. Line structure is an after thought and the set pieces are garbage. Its a very frustrating game to watch. 

You are welcome to believe what you wrote above - but over the past decade more tries were scored  than were scored in similar comps in the past.

Maybe it is not only the rule changes that changed the nature of the game as played trough elimination of  10 - man rugby and aimless kicking.   Forwards must have  ball skills nowadays and some degree of pace as well.   By not adjusting the above SA rugby went backwards under our last three dud coaches;

I am not sure whether White really made any adjustment of his thinking as a coach - there are too many indications to the contrary.   Anyway his two terminations was advertised as being the result of what you wrote - stories emanating from KEO - but there are more to it than you indicated.   Part of it had to do with his HR - which at the best of times was nightmarish.             

It's going more the way of rugby league. The body type is less diverse. New Zealand always had forwards that passed well though and if you look at Irb statistics for each Tri Nations tournament you'll see that they use their forwards up to 50% more than the next closest team. Sometimes more. It's not how their backs work that defines their game its how they use their forwards. Meyer was using his forwards more in that role but he was pretty roundly criticised even though guys like Schalk were better playmakers to play off of. Tries are scored less by great attack and more by sloppy defense. Its very passive and reactive. Everything else I wrote is actually true. That's how the game changed. That's what teams were doing. The IRB are bad at making changes to the game. They used 2009 to say that defense was too strong and tries not being scored was because the Boks were too defensive but the Boks were awarded so many penalties because Australians and New Zealanders were killing the ball to relieve pressure. Without penalties the Boks would not have been rewarded for their attacking power that was being illegally circumvented. If they didn't make those fouls the Boks would have had tries! So they started badly changing the breakdown in 2010 and 8t became a big mess ever since. Refs were ruining games ever since. And aimless kicking, kicking is a big part of the game. Kicking is useful because the ball moves faster than the players. If you can read the game you can exploit space and change the way teams defend. The Welsh like to defend with their 9 in the line so they have space at the back but the Boks almost never exploit it and try to run into the teeth of the defense. It is compounded by poor breakdown presence so they can't recycle and play becomes slow and stodgy. There are so many ways to use kicking so many patterns and tricks I don't know where to begin to explain it all. Chasing makes a kick even more effective. Kicking needs the whole team to join in. A strong press from the line and a chaser to pressure the receiver. It needs more sync from the 15 men than ball in hand rugby because ball in hand you only need a couple of players to make a line break. New Zealand use air dominance to deny teams territory and make their mistakes safer. I think you are very hazy on what makes a kick aimless or not. I don't see you explain any details. I don't see you explain any details in any phase of the game. Did you ever play? What position? 

Lurker

Let me explain a few things - an aimless kick  where it involves just handing over possession to the opposing team.   It is where kicks cannot be followed up effectively and poorly directed - ie straight into the hands of a waiting recipient.

There are two types of kicks that are acceptable, namely -

*   strategic kicks being part of an attack strategy eg dribble kicks near the opposition try-line and cross kicks.

*    relieving kicks - but they must be so directed that a quick throw-in is not possible.

You only needed to  see what aimless kicks really are you only need to watch a few games in which Morne Steyn played - he was so useless in that one has to only listen when commentators on air call his kicks BS .and what Hansen said about Morne as a flyhalf.  

Kicking must always meet the descriptions above and being a variation  to9 be used not most of the time.   

Meyer did not bring loosies in to assist in attacking play.   He in fact said publicly that SA players do not have the necessary ball skills to play a ball-in-hand  game.      What he did with Burger was to do in the 2015 WC was the exact opposite- it in fact neutralized the backline since  Burger was replacing the flyhalf as first recipient.   What actually happened in that  case was reverting back to the Bulls game plan he devised in 2004.        

We are lucky that taste of people differ,  There are nothing I dislike more than to watch a g ame of rugby where no tries are scored and the outcome decided by kicking at goal.  That never was the intention of rugby anyway - the main objective remains scoring of tries   

In 2013 South Africa kicked at Folau because he couldn't kick. So he got pinned back and had to to concede penalties. In 2014 they did a similar thing and Folau tried to kick it out but gave the Boks lineouts in and near the Australian 22. Effective kicks depend on numerous things. A good press and chase means the ball carrier has few options and is under pressure. Pressure leads to errors. I don't know of Hanson saying anything about Steyn and I don't remember him being a bad kicker apart from 2012 with place kicks. We've had wonky kicks from our 9s though. Ruan wasn't very good with tactical kicks even though they say he was a phenom at Ulster. We play off our 9s and we kick predominantly from our 9s. Not our 10s. When we play that 10 man rugby like you say we are playing with one man hit ups off 9, not 10 killing the back line. The aim of attacking rugby is to get the ball in the hands of your biggest threat and support him with whatever gives him the best chance of being effective. In 2015 Meyer used Schalk because he is a better passer than any of our centres. And he is stronger in contact. He poses a dual threat of being a powerful carrier hitting it up giving clean secure ball with few cleaners and able to to get the ball out to support. I don't get why that's a problem with you. Our 10s are not better first receivers than Schalk if you want to pass. But here's another thing, if you have Schalk at first receiver our 10 can play further out from the inner channel our midfield becomes the second layer to the attack. I bet you didn't think of that. Who does that too? New Zealand. Play your pod up front and have the backs underneath to play unders or overs. If the defense doesn't bite the pod crash it up. New Zealand spread their pods out and South Africans play tighter. That's about the biggest difference. There is a lot to what Meyer was doing that you didn't think of or see. Even Coetzee would surprise you.

PS Jake has mostly liked counter attacking rugby. Using quick sniping attacks and getting the wide men involved. 

Lurker

Beware of making sweeping statements,   Folau is the most dangerous player in the world to kick balls at - he is the most effective high kick catcher ever and a continuous threat when it comes to counter-attacks.   I have never seen his alleged poor kicking ability,

Before the 2014 Johannesburg test Hansen said they know exactly what to expect from  Morne and he was not talking about goal kicking,   He was on about a player who was totally predictable and who never attacked the gain line and was consequently ignored by defenders - whose kicking out of hand game was a farce - probably the worst in SA as a flyhalf ever,   Being predictable - the AB outside backs fell back to cover his notorious poor kicks and counter-attacked.   Hansen went on  by stating that he did not know what to expect from Pollard and he was right = the AB's lost that test despite  determined effort by Matfield to assist the AB's to score a try late in the game.  

Morne had so bad a deficiency in respect of kicking accuracy that he often missed finding touch with penalty line  kicks - it happened so often that it became a given in his case.   In one test year it happened 9 times. It culminated in the test loss in Perth in 2014 - after which Meyer never selected Morne to start at flyhalf again.

Meyer contributed in a major way to the loss of the Japan test in 2015,   He used Burger as the stand-in flyhalf and the latter made 4 knock-ons receiving the ball,  He was in all other cases tackled within 4 meters and his passing game was poor consisting in the main if hospital passes to the inside center.   A really horrible non-game plan,

As to White loving counter-attacking - it never happened when he was the Sharks coach.   He used Steyn as a ball-hogging crashballer and kicking away turnover ball like happened in the Durban game against the Highlanders in 2014 when with a host of overlaps outside of him on the halfway - Fat Fransie kicked the ball straight into the hands  of Ben Smith who was behind the tryline and just touched down the ball and a kick from the 22 followed.  That was a typical example of an aimless kick.

In making box kicks Pienaar was effective in the slow NH playing conditions - in SH games he was atrocious.   The kicks normally were too far to ever threaten a recipient through follow-up and was inaccurate as well.              

Sorry to disagree - but I found that in the main Meyer never had a real game plan and Morne was a useless flyhalf since his out-of-hand kicking was not only atrocious - but the rest of his game was the same - his only positive  being kicking at goal.   Remember that test against the English  in PE when Morne was boo-ed by the crowd.  

I do not believe the mouthings of coaches - I believe in what actually happens in games.   And when it came to  poor execution of especially the kicking-out-of-hand game the Steyns were notorious.             

"Be careful of making sweeping statements" 

"Morne was probably the worst 10 South Africa ever had" 

I know I've been guilty of being angry with him at times. He really had a difficult 2012 and got dropped but worst ever? Defenders ignored him? Nobody ignores a 10 all game. Folau did contribute to the Boks victory. Catching the high ball is one thing, doing something with it is another. He was useless running it back from deep and getting turned over. On one occasion a try resulted from him being trapped and his teammates being desperate to relieve pressure made errors. In 2014 he continually fluffed kicks and the Bok had close in line outs that gave their maul a platform to build pressure. You are denying facts. Being dishonest. This is what I asked you not to do in my first post. The same with Jake. You are being dishonest. In the World Cup Meyer gave Damian and Pollard a lot of ball to use. But both run and don't pass. Schalk can pass, so he probably should have played 10 or 12. The Boks couldn't get anything going against New Zealand because they were beaten by the All Black kicking game and against Wales it was too dangerous to play it wide. Damian got turned over the very first time the Boks attempted a wide play and it nearly got run back for a try. You're getting a little exposed here. 

The full back recognized as the best in the world at present is criticized by you and Morne never attacking the gain line and was  ignored by defenders is real,   He was always standing too deep in the pocket and  to be effective and his kicking game was a farce.  

By the way you had a string of previous user names on site - your story on Folau gave you away - so just remind us a bout what your previous names were please.   

You've jumped the gun badly. 

http://en.espn.co.uk/australia/rugby/story/197735.html

Folau believes the Wallabies' lack of finishing polish is costing them dearly in his challenging Test rugby baptism, after the side slumped to their third defeat in the championship and there fifth of the year.

League convert Folau endured a mixed first appearance in the Wallabies' No.15 jersey in the 38-12 loss to South Africa on Saturday night, as he was well contained by the Springboks and too often ignored by teammates.

This is embarrassing. Ignored by teammates. But there is more to this story.

Folau was expected to add an extra dimension to the Wallabies' attack but admitted the transition from Super Rugby, where he starred with NSW Waratahs, was huge. He turned the ball over at the ruck with his first run and also gave a penalty away later in the first half from a kick-return which gave the Boks a 16-6 lead.

"It's a tough level and it's a very big step up from playing Super Rugby," he said. "I'd like to get my hands on the ball more and make something of it. Last night there were times that it happened but I think I can do a better job."

Lurker

Folau's first test suddenly became career-defining.   How many tests has he played in since?   He is far bet ter than any full back playing at present - how did that happen?

Lurker - with respect what you wrote about Folau is BS.

Like I said, you have jumped the gun. Badly. The topic was kicking, and you defined the parameters that kicking into a players hands is ALWAYS bad. I chose Folau because he is a dangerous runner. I chose Folau because he was kicked at. I chose Folau because he could not deal with the ball deep in his half. He did it in two tests. One in 2013. One in 2014. You said I was stupid so I posted the article where he said himself he didn't play well. I wasn't lying. Now you say I am attacking Folau but you don't know what I think of him because you never thought to ask. You just stuck a label on me. If Folau was a rubbish player then it would hardly have proved my point. My point was that your definition of what is a good kick is wrong. I gave two tests that contradict your statement. Not only that, but using a fullback you said is the best in the world. Thank you for endorsing my argument. 

"By the way you had a string of previous user names on site - your story on Folau gave you away - so just remind us about what your previous names were please."

AAHHHH Interesting question Mikey...….let me hazard  a guess. Not sure if I agree with you about "By the way you had a string of previous user names on site..." but for my money and I am a betting man.....how's about we ask Lurker if he's familiar with a poster who went by the name of Arthur John?

It's just a question.

Yes I saw that name before. But what difference does it make who I am? We are here to talk rugby so let's talk rugby. I think I bring a lot to the table to talk about. Some of the other guys had been complaining about Clever Mike and Mozart and the place being stale. Welcome whatever new faces you get to add some colour. 

As I said you are indeed welcome - I was just wondering about the similarity between what was posted before about Israel Folau and what you posted about him.