Line speed the key for the Stormers...

It created the turnovers which generated the Stormers tries.......via 16 turnovers from Chiefs. It wasn't so much the tackling, the Stormers missed plenty....including bad misses by Kolbe and Viljoen which turned decent kicks into Chiefs tries. . But especially in the second half and at the death the Stormers line speed bewildered the Chiefs. And the Stormers avoided fruitless phase play which would have fed the Chiefs running machine....except in the Chiefs 22, where the pick and go worked well. In fact the only novel bit of play was the pass off the deck by Leyds. . Etzebeth provided brilliant fast ball off the front of the lineout and two maginficent recoveries of Stormees kickoffs. That also helped....one has to be amused at these fools who think he isn't our best lock. . Still it's line speed that stops the likes of the Chiefs, and of course it's the same tactic Jake coached and Jean executed so well for years.

 27 viewers and nobody commented on the utter BS above.  LMAO

 Line speed was good. Alos impressive was the fitness of the side and the heart.Next week is going to be a classic against the Lions.
The Cheetahs must step up to the plate when playing the wee Chiefies; who of course have been softened up by the Mighty Stormers. Don' t let us down!

 The two go hand in hand. Line speed drops off as the team gets tired.....there wasn't much drop off for the Stormers. It makes one wonder, how our coaches could have come to battle with an unfit team in the past.

To play a more balanced running game the team must be fully fit.
The Stormers stood up in a very determined fashion. They also showed a willingness and ability to attack.The Sharks are now trying to do the same thing. Their efforts were hampered by Bosch being at 15.It will take the Sharks a while longer but i have some hopes that they will do okay this year.

The Jaguares make so many mistakes trying to play their high tempo game....time and again they get a turnover and give it right back by going for the miracle offload. If they just consolidated a bit more they could be very effective.....they have some great backs.

 Beeno
It was not the line speed issue that is the problem - it is the two aimless kicks leading to Chief's tries that is the real issue.   "Decent kicks" can be followed up - those two were aimless and utter BS and created the space for the Chief's players to counter-attack.   They were too far for follow-up and poorly directed and executed.
During halftime the Stormers were according to their coaching set-up to stop kicking aimlessly and keep the ball in hand.   That was on TV and the change was evident.   This kicking mania is so stupid - it is unbelievable. 
Secondly no mention was made of the fact that the Stormers outscored the Chiefs by four tries to three - it is typical from an idiot who regard try scoring as insignificant and never deal with that in his comments - he has a mania about only defense and kicking.  
After that the BS really got thicker and thicker.   Jake never ever did decent backline coaching he had to get Eddie Jones in to help out.   The reference to De Villiers was also inappropriate and seriously inaccurate.   What happened over all the years Coetzee was coach and De Villiers played for the Stormers the record speaks for itself - an inability to score tries,   The Stormers try scoring record after 6 games this year are already better than it was in each of the last six years of Super Rugby.  
One has to laugh at the drivel that was reflected above and I expect the zero intelligence displayed by the starter of this thread will turn nto another personal attack.      
  

 Jaco Waco was the key for the Stormers -->come to think of it, he is the key for all SA Teams 

The man is a rugby illiterate and he does not mind writing totally illiterate rubbish on this site. 
and I expect the zero intelligence displayed by the starter of this thread

it is typical from an idiot

Absolute rugby modelled on the game advocated by the other idiot on site. 

Four comments over the last day by Clevermike - the same guy who just tried to accuse someone else of turning threads into personal attacks. It would have been almost funny if it wasn't so tiresome and pathetic.

 Pakie
I am only responding in kind to the comments made by the Rugby ignoramus. The man is impossible to deal with without remembering that he knows nothing about human relations and less about rugby.
You are now repeating what you regard as personal comments - but not the exposure of the BS contained in the starting thread.   You are obviously in agreement with those and that calls your rugby intelligence into question as well.    

There campaign of character assassination and lies have reached such a low point that I have decided not to respond to the utter BS they write on this site. 

Yet here you are, "responding in kind"?
Also, I'm not sure how insulting the intelligence of someone who didn't even mention you in any of their posts is "responding in kind". Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the phrase before questi oning other people's intelligence.

 Pakie
What about lyingstein - stupid?

 Pakie
What about lyingstein - stupid?

So by the way, there is more to the first two Chiefs tries than "aimless kicking". Those weren't two bad kicks. Both could have put huge pressure on the Chiefs but for two missed tackles - one by Kolbe on Lowe in the first try, and then by Viljoen on McKenzie for the second try.
But there's more - look at the poor alignment of the Stormers followup to the second kick. As many as six defenders advancing into an area where there are no attackers, while leaving a huge gap where the actual concentration of Chiefs players are. 


The red circle highlights Viljoen missing McKenzie, the yellow shows the hole left by the Stormers followup that McKenzie exploits, and the white shows the big heap of nothing the Stormers defensive line is advancing on with their followup instead of closing the gap on the inside.
It's not as simple as "aimless kicking". Those were two decent pressure kicks let down by poor tackling/following up.

As for Lyingstein, I haven't see you stop referring to the people in question as idiot, liar, village idiot, etc. even once since you made the undertaking to stop responding to them, so frankly, you have little to complain about. 

 Pakie
There is no need to carry on about the kick mishaps - they were poor since effective follow-up was not possible.   Even an idiot would realize that a long distance kick away from the players cannot be followed up effectively.   It is extremely difficult to defend in such cases as the defensive line is automatically disrupted.  
The making of similar kicks were discussed during halftime and the coache s told the players not to do it again and it was not noticeable in the second half - why should coaches prohibited it - while  you and your hero on site claims otherwise?

That is why some of our flyhalfs of the past were really poor and that is what we must avoid in future. 
But then we have people who pray for kicks - but do not realize the difference between strategic kicking and BS.  


 

No kicker will get every kick pinpoint right every time. The only way those pinpoint kicks happen is by the kicker continuing to attempt making them. 
Neither of the Stormers kicks were pinpoint, but both were good. Kolbe makes his tackle, Chiefs in trouble. Viljoen makes his tackle, Chiefs in trouble. The kicker can be held accountable for the failings of the followup only when he leaves the followup no chance to apply pressure, which was not the case in either of the two exam ples above.

Give it up Pakie. The facts do not sit well with the old puff adder's narrative which means that you will effectively be painted by the same brush that anybody, who do not live and die by the old idiot's narrative, is painted.

Tok was winding up to say the Stormers lost because of aimless kicking....and then, oops, they won. The kicks were fine, the follow up was abysmal. Since when do you run a kick back 95 metres without the defence being asleep. Another deflection....just as you will find nothing about Leyds, but a lot about Viljoen who botched the defence after one of those kicks. ... He isn't called Lyingstein for nothing.

Pakie
If the kicks were that good - why did the coach said at halftime that the Stormers players were told not to use that type of kicks?    The kicks were maybe not aimless - but a recipe for disaster as a result of which 2 tries were scored.   However, after halftime there were no similar kicks made. 
Kicks must not be the key to games - merely a variation - and kicks where ball possession is handed over to the opposition is aimless and at the very bes t atrocious.
I cannot understand this mania about kicking as a central component of the game of rugby propagated by  some on this site.   It is a ridiculous way of handing ball possession over to the opposition and aimless kicks more often leads to counter-attacks resulting in tries.    

Yep. Definitely developing into something similar to "The Jump".

 I know all three of you think that 90% of the game of a flyhalf consists of kicking balls - but you lot has never been able to evaluate the quality of kicks and especially no that kicking can lose teams games.    Fact is at an interview during half time the coaching said that the two kicks which leaked tries must stop and the kicks were not repeated in the second half.   So even the coaches regards the kicks as BS - but you think they were "good" or "decent".   Now who must a person believe?  You or the coaching staff? 
Can you not see that most in-field kicks only represent handing over ball protection to the opposition.   You will never understand why on two occasions described to kixks by Morne Steyn in the Dunedin test in 2012 were described as BS.  
So what is so evident that of BS hits you in the face you do not recognize when the kicking game is effective in not more than 10% of kicks made are effective, the rest is counter0productive representing only handover of ball possession.    One would think that a Class 1 pupil will recognize the deficiencies while you lot fail to see it,    
Crazy idea on your part and no wonder I think you are rugby illiterate.        

Dr Phil at work. You think this..... You think that..... You think the other. Retired municipal officer becomes psychologist.

 Himmel - another proven nutcase cannot answer the most basic question and  then goes bananas when proven in so many cases that poor kicking is counter-productive, but the so-called "rugby experts" on this site believe in kicking being virtually the key component of backline play - nothing else but defense matters.   
Let me explain the worst kicks ever was made from inside any teams 22 and then never find touch when they are supposed to be relieving kicks.
Nobody can make pinpoint kicks all the time is no argument - because how come the NZ teams succeed virtually all the time in making such kicks?   No wonder those typ e of kicks coming from for instance the Steyns are regarded as acceptable and all kind of excuses are then dreamed up to cover for those types of kickers when the kicks go awry.  

 Himmell - another proven nutcase cannot answer the most basic question and  then goes bananas when proven in so many cases that poor kicking is counter-productive, but the so-called "rugby experts" on this site believe in kicking bein g virtually the key component of backline play - nothing else but defense matters.   
Let me explain the worst kicks ever was made from inside any teams 22 and then never find touch when they are supposed to be relieving kicks.
Nobody can make pinpoint kicks all the time is no argument - because how come the NZ teams succeed virtually all the time in making such kicks?   No wonder those type of kicks coming from for instance the Steyns are regarded as acceptable and all kind of excuses are then dreamed up to cover for those types of kickers when the kicks go awry.  

  The phrase, "Let me explain.......", is normally followed by an explanation and not by something that you have dreamed up and then offered as a fact.

I wonder about the absence of a brain in the comments above.  Read what Mallett said about those two dismal kicks I criticized - but our local mongs cannot get it. 

Woosh.

When an idiot is caught out he says Woosh.  

Nope. It is used by someone who catches out an iodiot. You are so thick that you wouldn't recognise an idiot if you are moered between the eyes with one. In Afri.kaans..... jou kop is so plat, 'n mens kan tappits stel met die donnerse ding.

 Ag foeitog he describes himself and hope it applies to others - what a mong!!!!!!!!

Who cares what Mallett said....he was just spouting the party line. The kicks were fine. In fact the kick to the corner was excellent, it could easily have gone out right there as intended. But given the rugby ball, it took an odd bounce. After that the defence was very poor....the second kick was not as good but should still have been easily defended. ... Field kicks when your team is under pressure is the smart play. But it's handing over possession says Tokkie, failing to understand that terrotory and possession are a constantly changing equation which is often best solved by a kick. Sterile phase play simply hands over possession eventually. ....much deeper in your own territory.

Slow down Moz. You are going too fast. Ou Tokkie is still grappling with the kick itself and now you are throwing in stuff like possession and territory. You are going to confuse the poor soul.

 Yes Mallet remarked on those two kick as being poor and his opinion does carry weight. Fact is you do not kick down the throats of the Chiefies.  The other fact is that the Stormers did start driving more with their forwards and retaining possession.
Cerundunce windpomp jou boomslang please listen to Mike who knows his stuff pretty well.  Thanks

The first kick was directed at the corner into an open space....it was not aimless. The fact is Kolbe and Dan du Preez should have snuffed the Chiefs out deep. Kolbe arrives way before du Preez who jogged up there, leaving a a ragged line. Kolbe missed two tackles and du Preez slipped and was a non factor. .. The defence behind them consisted of no backs.....Etzebeth and Wilco ....clearly they weren't the right players. Then Viljoen who had the last crack fails to prevent the offload. ... The kick was well directed it was a Keystone Cops defence, ... The second kick came after a few phases at the Stormers 10 metre line...Duvenage put it in space right up against the touchline. Once again we presented a ragged line that came up skew, with Viljoen hanging back instead of sealing off the outside. He then badly missed his tackle. .... As one of the commentators said, it was a good kick from Duvenage. .... In fact the first kick from Du Preez was no different to the kick from Duvenage at minute 39....into the corner....which set up our crucial try at the half. I suppose that was another aimless kick. The sheer utter stupidity of all this blows the mind.

 S o the BS persisted Mong.   He does not know what the quality of kicks is to be accepted as a norm.    So the Mong still persist with his justifying what nobody else can justify.   What a fool we have ion this site.
Why did the coaches forbid that type of kicks during halftime and they did not recur in the second half mong?  
Why did Mallett confirm they were poor kicks?
The Mong no 1 always knows better and his BS has been exposed for the umpteenth time for what it really is - the views of a rugby illiterate.    

 "He does not know what the quality of kicks is to be accepted as a norm."
Aaaaaand there ou Tokkie goes again..........

Damn good thing Kolbe disobeyed those supposed instructions...hey Tokkie. Why don't you tell us again how useless Leyds is.

 Kolbe has nothing to do with your BS as stated above - diverting attention away from the real discussion is always a trend with your idiotic BSting.   Exposed and the chief Mong does not admit he was as per normal spout BS on the site.

 Kolbe has nothing to do with your BS as stated above - diverting attention away from the real discussion is always a trend with your idiotic BSting.   Exposed and the chief Mong does not admit he was as per normal spouting BS on the site.