Lock selection situation

Why not explain why the "book" is wrong?   My interpretation of the rules are 100% correct, your response when I raised the issue first was so ridiculous it cannot even be called farcical - it was beyond that.

You do not want to be bothered by facts when the truth hurts and you cannot dispute the outlined situation.   Have fun - you have not wriggled out of the issue as outlined yet.  You  can start off explaining why driving mauls since 2014 became ineffective as a strategy by the Springboks - but are effectively used by opposition teams against them.  

Let me ask you - can you list any examples of the description of De Jager are supported by facts.   But that has never been your forte - to write things that you dream up always was.           

Sorry Mozart

I differed from you here for the sole reason relating to the absence of driving mauls in the case of Springbok rugby.   I look ed at the issue time and again in lineouts and realize that the problem relates to the lack of physicality in the number 5 position.   When Du Toit caught line-out balls he can co-ordinate and direct driving mauls - when Mostert catch the balls he cannot do so.  He can get the ball well enough to the scrumhalf - but when he lands he cannot do the organising of mauls

I looked at line-outs in both the AB tests and found that it is impossible for Mostert to start driving mauls because the rest of the line is slightly in front of him and when he moves in to start a maul they would be blown up.

Rolling mauls is very effective by other teams the Springboks played against this year and the weakness of the Springboks in using that strategy must really be one of the major problems need solving.   I looked at all five Tight 5 players and the  answer became clear inasmuch as the problem is not relating to -

*   either of the props; 

*   Etzebeth; and

*   Marx.

Beside that there was some successful mauls - but they were all started by Du Toit when he got the ball.   Logic consequently indicates that the only problem where mauls go out of the window can only be Mostert.   

You are welcome to watch the games again and see whether I am correct or wrong in my assessment.   Even you must realize there must be a reason for the virtual vanishing of mauls from the attack strategy of the Springboks.   

I think the problem is more serious than most people imagine.   It is not advisable to constantly kick penalties at goal early in games - the team - inclusive of the coach - probably realize that of the five goal kicks two or three should have gone to the corner in an effort to score tries, but they did not because of deficiency in the Tight 5.

That is probably also the reason why Erasmus on several occasions said he wants Etzebeth and De Jager as the lock combination.

Sorry Mozart

The ball catcher is the one who co-ordinate and direct the rolling maul - nobody else.   Why is Mostert not able to be the standing one in mauls?   Ask yourself that question and look again what makes Mostert non-functional in rolling mauls.

I may be wrong - but I do not think he will be in Erasmus's plans for the future.    

Our lock situation is amazing right now -

Etzebeth, De Jager, Moster, Snyman, Du Toit, Schickerling are all excellent players

Mozart

I asked you repeatedly for examples and prove where De Jager is lazy and mentally slow.   Give examples and not expect that anybody would buy into prejudice.   Why was De Jager always preferred to Snyman - if there is a mentally slow player it is Snyman - who gives away too many penalties as a result.

When last have you seen Willemse play?   Erasmus as coach of Munster had a chance to watch most of the SA players for NH clubs and if Willemse was that good - he would have been in the Erasmus shortlist.   He was never even mentioned and has never played rugby in SA over the last five years,   I am not sure though - he was a ca rd risk whenever he played in SA - but I do not know his disciplinary problem in Montpellier.  

By the way he played for Montpellier against  Newcastle and  Montpellier lost the game.  Willemse did score a try for Montpellier, but the rest of his stats in the game was sick.   Newcastle is not the strongest team around. 

The previous week Montpellier played Edinburgh and Willemse made a lot of tackles - the rest of his game was average  to poor. 

Statistically a very average player on club level.   

By the way have you got any proof that Du Toit did not make the grade at lock - examples please.   The real indication is that Erasmus felt with the return of De Jager and potentially the selection of Schickerling would solve the lock problem and make Du Toit available to solve another major problem at 7 - where Louw was poor and the other players as well.  Erasmus realized the problem at 7  long ago and asked the Stormers and  Lions to try Mostert and Du Toit out at 7.   Mostert did noit make3 the grade - Du Toit did.   There is no indication that Du Toit failed at 7.

Would it not be advisable to stop your  prejudiced attacks on Du Toit?               . 

Duplicate

Dave

It is hopeless to discuss anything about either Du Toit or De Jager with Mozart.   He hated those two players since they became a threat selection-wise to his beloved Matfield.   Since then he made wild statements - which he could not prove about those two players.

As time went on he gained two further allies on his side - AO and the brainless Ceradunce.  The quality of their thinking is problematically low - and whatever they say is correct and the rest of the world are wrong or that is what they believe.

Just a question - both AO and Ceradunce are living in England - question is does the UK have no provision to keep idiots out of the country?      

I'm not living in England. Haven't been in England since 2008. I'm a long way from Western Europe. 

Anyway, to the topic. I raised issues in Steph's game which were verifiable in the video I posted. Everything was as I said. Repeating a lie here won't change the reality. There is no campaign, no hate, bias or prejudice. Just plain facts which have already been verified. The problem is that you worship Steph. He has a good game and you brand him "greatest Bok of all time". A tad premature. You berate Louw for the two poor games he had, where was your criticism of Steph in the second Puma test? Or Brisbane? You lack honesty.

You call me am idiot? Who rated Esterhuizen a 4 for poor defence in the home win he lost in Brisbane when he was our most secure defensive back making scores of tackles? I can cite a dozen of these kinds aberrations, even more if properly motivated. Your arguments are too often a complete mess; Too easily debunked. 

AO

Thanks - but you and facts are totally at war with other.  Listen you love to talk tripe.  I rated players on actual tests played.  In the four tests Esterhuizen played in he made 22 tackles and missed 5.  In the four De Allende played in he made 32 tackles missing 5.  Who was the better defender?  Definitely not Esterhuizen - that is the kind of calculation I made - not the generalized tripe you specialize in.    

Balls - this kind of statement is just guesswork on your part AO.  You have no proof of what you write about as fact. Matter of fact generalizations is about as much worth as any fairy tale would be. By the way it would help if y ou can add up figures as well - 3 + 1 +1  =  5

I have repeatedly asked Mozart and you to give exact examples of where player failed and all anybody gets in response is either nothing or what I call generalized nonsense.   

I have all the proof. I have both player's entire season thus far spliced and ready to upload. All that is required is the EOYT. That'll be everything. I can't wait to hear the excuses that'll follow. 

Fine - you will upload the facts - but those type of thing can be easily manipulated by omission of things and false description - things that Mozart and you Pakie are regulars in.   

I am really going to enjoy that one - but the joke will be funny peculiar - not funny ha-ha,   You three are funny with interpretation what happens and mostly ridiculously false.      

But then everybody else are plastic supporters who force idiot coaches to make changes to teams.

Team to play England - Leave Du Toit at 7 where he is world class. Bring in Snyman at lock. Very simple really. Lood may take time to be back to best.

Beeno

I think Erasmus has doubts as to Snyman as well.   He used him n the bench a couple of times - mostly replacing Etzebeth in the process.   He was not very effective in that position as well. 

That is why  I believe that Schickerling may be picked as a back-up for Etzebeth and that De Jager will be picked to start and he is likely to be replaced by Du Toit being moved from 7 to 5 if necessary.  Otherwise Etzebeth for a change could play a full game and Schickerling can be the back-up for De Jager.  

That may open the way for J-L du Preez to come from the bench as a loosie.   

Mozart

We know that you are talking balls again insofar as the Brown's try.  De Allende made a tackle further in-field and ran to try and stopped Brown after Pollard missed the tackle on Brown.  He made the tackle - but Brown could stretch out to place the ball over the tryline.  So who as to blame for the scoring of the try - 60% Pollard, 40% De Allende.

There is strings of other misinterpretations above and I will just del with two here:-

*   Your interpretation as to the role of the catcher is absolute tripe.   The catcher is never the one that is the real power at mauls - his role is entirely different.   The catcher real priority is to come down stand form and direct and co-ordinate the formation of the maul.  Your assumption as to the contribution of the role of the jumper is totally misleading and shows the logic of a six-year-old.

*    Your constant story about Du Toit being too weak to play at lock - is about as false as anything you write can be,   I want to take you back a decade to the situation was Rossouw.   There never was a word about Rossouw being deficient as a lock when White moved him to play at 8.

The problem all along was that Matfield was from a physicality perspective deficient and all that White and his successors up to Meyer had to do was bring in locks and subsequent to Juan Smith real duds to try and make up for that deficiency.   You yourself at one stage justified the inclusion of Alberts at 7 as a result of that problem.

However, the attack on Du Toit is constant on the basis by you for being moved to 7.   That is utter nonsense and you should know it. 

Mozart - you should start thinking about the game and forget about your nonsense for which you have become known.   You regularly when caught up comes up with utter nonsense like "process tackles" without really identifying what the difference is between "tackles" and "process tackles".    The difference that ahs been clear for years is that the player making a huge number of tackles suddenly makes  "process tackles"  to discredit the said player and the player you favour often making about half the tackles of the one you attack suddenly makes "tackles" - so the manipulation is based on what you call quality of tackles.  That normally is done to mislead members - sad to say,         

Up your game please - you are becoming known for making worthless contributions - which is to your discredit.  

err err ouMaaik, Brown was off-balance after his collision with Pollard, all DudAllende had to do wus bliksem him over the touchline ..... instead, he decides to strip the ball from Brown ...... maar all die dom poephol achieved wus propping him up, restoring the Pom's balance & allowing him to score.

The situation is that I opened for discussion the issue why driving mauls has virtually vanished from the Springbok game plan.   I was hoping that members like Mozart and A O would come up with some ideas and all I got from Mozart was -

*   a total misinterpretation of the penalty rule as to players in the air; and

*   a total ignorance as to the role of the ball catcher in forming and directing/co-ordinating of rucks,

At least Mozart tried to discredit the posting - but it went totally over the head  of AO - who normally quote extensively from coaching manuals - but does not know when what he writes actually happens on the field of play.   

Both could not contradict what I wrote about the maul problems which started as far back as 2014 and is now at crisis level in SA rugby,    There are too many indications  that their favourites like Matfield and now Mostert are integral to the driving maul problems - but for them to admit anything will discredit all the  nonsense they write on site about forward play.     

Mozart

I ask for an explanation of why driving mauls are not aa prominent part of Springbok rugby  anymore - but he goes on the defensive as to Matfield and Mostert - without any real analysis of what is being discussed.

After his return from retirement in 2014 Matfield was a dead loss in rolling mauls and he was pushed out of mauls constantly - and there was some cases where he did not even make the clean catch on own throw, which would have resulted in mauls.

Mozart even an illiterate would understand the roll of the ball-catcher in the maul situation.   He is NOT the driving force in mauls - he is the starter and co-ordinator of mauls.   That makes your statement about the role of the catcher a seriously defective JOKE.

Have you no other opinion about the issue  than trying to protect the two players iro which there are indications of deficiency in that aspect of the game?     

Mozart

Start thinking why mauls went out of the window as a strategy of the Springboks since 2014,  That was what was the topic I raised.  I gave my own version of how I saw the problem and indicated clearly why I think the problems  start at 5 selections.

Sure I raised the issue of Matfield and Mostert - because they were the no 5's when the problem was most pronounced.

Now you comment on 2 - I never switched to anything - I tried to point out that you were totally wrong about the penalty issue - in fact it was a bad misinterpretation.   

As to 3 I explained in some detail why Mostert cannot be the basis in setting up the forming of mauls.   It went straight over your head and your comment did not deal with the starting procedure in forming of mauls.   Both Matfield after 2014 was and Mostert at present is physically not strong enough to start the process of creating a basis for a maul.

In the case of the 4th point - have you any proo f of what you write now or is it just another escape mechanism.   

One would expect an intelligent analysis not a grossly inappropriate effort at pretending that it is not a problem and coming up with totally farcical comments.

Try again - the above is clearly not sufficient.