Louw vs Coetzee - who should be in the Springbok squad?

Both the players played for their Clubs in the European Cup yesterday and that gives us ordinary people a chance to compare their performances in the games played. 

Louw

Balls passed                -              6

Balls carried                -              3

Meters gained            -              6

Line breaks                  -               0

Defenders beaten      -               0

Off-loads                      -               0

Possession losses       -                1

Tackles made             -                 5

Tackles missed           -                 3

Coetzee

Balls passed                -              4

Balls carried                -            13

Meters gained            -            44

Line breaks                  -               1

Defenders beaten      -               5

Off-loads                      -               2

Possession losses       -                0

Tackles made             -                24

Tackles missed           -                 4          

Now I will be very happy to hear from AO and Mozart why Louw had a better match than Coetzee.   It would be interesting to see what they come up with,      

I know how both players play and I know that Coetzee would struggle at test level, again. He doesn't have the physicality on defence or attack. He does some good thing, but there's nothing in his game that can't be bettered by others. I'd rather have Kolisi. Louw has come off an excellent game against the All Blacks. A proven entity gets the nod. I'm sure Rassie will see it similarly. 

This is unbelievable - the fact is that Louw basically failed in most tests and was unbelievably poor in the match yesterday and he gets punted by AO.  

I hope Rassie does the exact opposite - to believe what AO states is absolutely impossible.   He cannot assess player performances ever and come up with anything realistic.    

Louw was a flop in most games and slightly better against the AB's - so what makes him selectable.   I doubt whether he will get a call-up to the squat again.  

One should never look at one=game wonders - especially since in the other tests he flopped.   

Augustus is still a  youngster and will get better with time,   Coetzee is in his prime performance-wise and will always be better.     Louw is still an over-the-hill player and will get worse all the time.    

Louw had two iffy games. Not most games. Incidentally, Steph had two iffy games as well. So, why is he let off the hook? We are honest enough to say it as it is. That's the difference.

Coetzee in his prime? I have seen several of his games over the past couple of months or so. I have seen nothing to suggest he is somehow in his prime. His 2012 to 2014 self is clearly better. Let's face it, the primary reason why you choose him is his age. Nothing more. 

It is interesting how you assess him against opposition you said were useless, garbage, worst ever in the world, lacking skills, slow and untalented. Remember? I do. Now that a couple of your pet likes are up north, it's a quality rugby environment. 

AO 

Instead of writing crap - did you watch the Newcastle - Montpellier game?

I did and here goes:-

*   Serfontein was good in both attack and defense.

*   Pienaar was crap - fairly accurate goal kicking and acceptable passing, but still crap

*   Willemse was totally ineffective - but managed to score a pushover try - for the rest a dead loss.

None of the Du Plessis brothers played - are they being phased  out?   Their contracts will end at the end of the present NH rugby  season  - seemingly no chance of renewal.    

AO

Coetzee was off for a long time with injury - he had one game early in 2018 and was then laid off for more than 8 months getting back late August.

So how did you "see" him over the last couple of months?   I know you "see" things that does not happen in games.   So that "see"  was imaginary?

No - let me explain something you never understand.   I look at player PERFORMANCES - not imaginary things like supposed body strength that is dreamed up - no r fairy tales you want to see as happened and then made out that it did.      

Mozart

This discussion deals with Coetzee and Louw - trying to divert again and ignore the performances of the two players concerned.  It will not work - so get back to the topic of discussion.   Incidentally  a top class performer can be proved more easily when his team plays against a much stronger team and despite that he till performs.  

No Mozart

When you cannot convince people that they believe what they read from you - then the diversion follows.   I did mention Augustus once - just in response to your drivel and attempted diversion.

If you do not understand it - this item was about Louw and Coetzee - nothing else.   

AO

I can remember one test where Louw failed miserably and Mozart,  Pakie and you tried to prove otherwise,  He was poor in all tests he played bar the one AB test and my assessment of him being a failure was always contested by Mozart and you. 

By the way your reference to Du Toit is also laughable.   Du Toit was the top tackler in the RC and in the Team of the Tournament.  Louw was NOT in the list of Top 10 tacklers and never  consideration for anything.   So why is it that I criticize Louw and not Du Toit?  Because I with reason do not believe the stories either Mozart or you spun on site.   Most are total misrepresentation of what actually happened.  Real fun to watch the shenanigans  of you two,      

AO

I can remember one test where Louw failed miserably and Mozart,  Pakie and you tried to prove otherwise,  He was poor in all tests he played bar the one AB test and my assessment of him being a failure was always contested by Mozart and you. 

By the way your reference to Du Toit is also laughable.   Du Toit was the top tackler in the RC and in the Team of the Tournament.  Louw was NOT in the list of Top 10 tacklers and never  consideration for anything.   So why is it that I criticize Louw and not Du Toit?  Because I with reason do not believe the stories either Mozart or you spun on site.   Most are total misrepresentation of what actually happened.  Real fun to watch the shenanigans  of you two,      

Augustus is nowhere near test level, he was almost a passenger against the Sharks. Obviously he will improve but having seen him play a big match now is definitely not hi s time. Ou maaaikie please stop misleading the board!

Cant comment on Coetzee as never saw him play. The sharp Beeno eye has always proven be be better than any robotic stats.

Beeno

Please do not fall for Mozart's diversion tricks - I thought you were cleverer than that.   

Mozart clearly does not want to know or admit that Louw is not up to standard - but he insists that he be retained.  Part of his normal age-based selections.

He from 2012 hated Coetzee with a vengeance and as is normal attacks the player mostly totally out of context.

So when the performances of Louw and Coetzee are compared he uses his normal diversion trick to get away from the real topic.   I find it extra funny that you can be misled that easily .       

What was the heading of the thread??????????  

Louw didn't play anywhere near the same amount of minutes Steph did! Plus, from breakdown defence, Steph was defending more active channels. You can't merely look at defensive numbers and say one was better than the other. Why not look at the defensive lapses Steph made? That's where you determine a player's limitations. I documented those accurately.

Where I defended Louw was the second Puma test when you strained to pin three tries on him! You went quiet after you were corrected, now you predictedly retell the same nonsense. 

You as per normal defend the farce made by players of what should have happened.   Louw was the nearest player to try and prevent the Sanchez try  - he also missed two real tackle attempts on layers who scored tries subsequently.   Come now - I know you have tried some more fairy tales about that game.    Pathetic -  LOL

I have a serious problem with Louw and we will see on Saturday whether he will make the grade according to Erasmus.    Doubt whether he will play again for the Springboks.   

This is how I dealt wit the tries in the second test:

https://www.ruckersforum.com/forum/augenöffner/xs--os--puma-tries-game-2-/27067

As for the first? Louw was nowhere to blame. If you want to see exoneration, refer to your posts regarding Willemse and his intercepted pass for a try. Or maybe your flimsy defence of Goosen and the tries which resulted from his poor defence in Dunedin. Or Damian's horror show against Australia in 2015 and against New Zealand in the WC, where Bobu played the following with him. You always have a scapegoat for each of these failures. You even blamed Am for a New Zealand try in Wellington which had nothing to do with him after Damian was blown wide open after a lineout. Always a scapegoat. You have a natural affection for the Barabus figure. 

Mozart -s top lying please.   It is really getting tiresome - I said the loss at Dunedin mainly stemmed from the 7 kicks at goal missed by Steyn.  No suddenly there were "tries" scored by the AB's when in fact there was ONE try scored and I did not bother to even check your so-called complicity of Goosen in the case of that try being scored.   I have often found you and Mozart has one thing in common and that was to distort  what happens and blame it on your pet hate players.           

Keep to facts please.   

New Zealand scored two tries. One from a breakout after Nonu ran right over Goosen and the other when Goosen waltzed off leaving an entire ruck exposed on the openside! Ergo, Goosen was largely to blame for both of them. Morné would have made that tackle. He would never have been so reckless around the fringes.

You have yet to refute one word of anything I have written. You yourself are continually debunked. 

AO 

What was the score when Steyn was replaced?  You started of claiming it was 12 each - but afterwards  you changed it to 8 each. 

Anyway there was no indication that your description is even remotely correct.  In the first instance the AB's scored only two tries,  In the case of the first try it was scored by Dagg at minute 18.   That resulted from a total foul-up by Kirchner - he was nowhere near where he should have been.   Steyn was at that stage on the field of play - Goosen was on the bench at that stage.

In the case of the Smith try it was another farce.   I never said Goosen did not miss a tackle on Nonu -  but that did not lead to the try being scored.   The real fact is here was a maul near the AB tryline and Goosen was guarding an opposition  player wider out - same  excuse as you  came up for Louw recently - and Aaron Smith broke around the side of the ruck and scored.   Where were the loosies in that case - nowhere in sight.

But it became a hobby horse for the Morne supporters to attack Goosen with.   There were never any mention made when Morne royally buggered up the whole game by missing 7 kicks at goal and made the famous BS kicks out of hand. 

Some honesty will be sincerely appreciated.    Since you have a habit of changing your posts after being caught out, I copied the above posting of yours and here it is:-

"New Zealand scored two tries. One from a breakout after Nonu ran right over Goosen and the other when Goosen waltzed off leaving an entire ruck exposed on the openside! Ergo, Goosen was largely to blame for both of them. Morné would have made that tackle. He would never have been so reckless around the fringes.

You have yet to refute one word of anything I have written. You yourself are continually debunked."

LMAO.   Another change of user name is called for here.

PS  Morne was the flyhalf with the highest missed tackle count I have ever seen for the past 50 years.    In three tests he had  a missed tackle count of 16 missed tackles out of 29 tackle attempts.   Would he have made the tackles you claimed he would have?  With that record definitely not. 

  .     

A player is too old when he can no longer perform like he used to. This Logan's Run philosophy we see from the pro-infant sect is bizarre. 

AO

No comment on my post as to the scoring of tries in the Dunedin test?   Caught out and now unable to respond honestly?

Now as to the age factor - nobody said that age is in fact a factor.   Fact is performance and not age should be  the determining norm. So who is supposed to determine whether performance is still met?  That is supposed to be the coach and this is where Meyer failed totally.   His own words when faced about the elderly predominating his WC squad said that he "knew what players are capable of",   Problem with that statement was that it did not take into account when the capabilities were shown and it became clear that the performance requirement went out of the window.

It is an undisputed fact that the prime performance age of rugby players are between the ages of 25 and 29 years,  There are obviously very successful younger players - like Ioane at 21 at present considered as the best wing in the world.

On the players on the older side there are also performance failure before players reach the age of 29 - a very prominent example is Frans Steyn.  

However, in general decline in performance normally becomes noticeable after the age of 30 and has a tendency to start slowly and get worse with the ensuing years.   Most players by 33 is so much worse in performance than they were at 30 that  a really serious evaluation of performance is necessary,   However objective assessment is particularly necessary when players get older than 30 anyway.   

The above should take care of the thoughtless "pro-infant sect is bizarre" statement.   In this case are you the pro-infant? Looks like it is if the member makes an infantile  posting like that.

What comment? I don't have to hide from anything. 

You are confusing prime performance for physiological prime. Some players perform better later in their careers, some fizzle out much earlier, well before the ages you cite. Pogba is 25, yet he is playing very poorly. Cristiano Ronaldo is 33 and better. Mandzukic is 32 and playing better than most players younger than him.

In rugby? Du Preez outplayed every scrumhalf who played under Meyer. With ease. Schalk outplayed anything Coetzee has ever done. There are too many examples to reference which blow holes into your poorly thought out golden rule.

Some advice that will stand you in good stead: You cannot determine performance exclusively through stats and age. If you can't analyse the game you cannot understand any aspect of the game. At all. 

Read that post about the scoring of tries in the Dunedin test again.  You were caught out badly and no pretend you were not.   Shame on you!!!

Now for the age issue - nobody actually said age is a factor.  performance is the only factor that counts.   Your comments on Burger is total BS - sorry to use that term.   He failed badly in the Japan test and was worse as the WC tests went on.  Should never have been in the WC squad,          

Which thread?

This thread  AO

Look at your posting of 22 October at 14:04 and my response of 15:41.

Trying to run away from responding!!!!!!!!!!

Just apologize for misleading of the members and get done with it.

No Mozart

Don't try with deviation again.   Your colleague AO tried to mislead the site by praising  Burger when in fact he was substandard in the Japan test and not much better in the other WC tests.

It would help if you advise your colleague AO to stick to facts and not write untruths on site,   This thread is a disgrace insofar as his shenanigans are concerned.

We all know you are an enemy of the truth and he is even worse so. 

Yes, I remember. It was the test in South Africa where the lineout try happened. Very similar field positions etc. Kirchner was the designated kick chaser for the first try. He stopped Hore head on, so the breakout was not his fault, nor was he able to be at the back. Goosen got run over another time in front of the try line. Try. This was in the home test .

GG NO RE, 

AO

Sorry - but this kind of thing  "I remember" was now suddenly what not happened in the Dunedin test.  You were caught out badly and now wants to sidestep the issue.   Sorry AO - better apologize than to go into further trouble.

You refer to the Johannesburg test I presume in your latest comments.   Goosen played for 14 minuts in that test - got a serious knee injury - and was treated on site,   He stayed on the field and tried to continue - but could not and was treated further.  and then replaced five minutes later by Jantjies.  There are too problems with your latest "I remember":- 

*   Goosen ne ver msised a tackle in that game; and

*   Nonu never made a line break or beat any defenders in that game either.

The more you try - the deeper you get into the poo-e.   Sorry - but you better straighten out what you write on site.