Marcel Coetzee

Mozart

The difference here is that Coetzee sis a class act compared to what either Louw or Vermeulen was this year,    A hard=working nd effective player who should eb in the Springbok set-up ahead of those two.

Dave is correct insofar a Coetzee is concerned - he is a hard working player compared to the two mentioned.  

.   

Mozart

Coetzee does not need to be a changed player at all - he is good enough as a loosie to qualify for Springbok selection.   He just needs to be better than Louw and Vermeulen - which he easily is.

HA-HA-HA 

The story continues - the man is at least working hard.  Unlike the low work rate players you adore,

No Mozart

We will know whether Vermeulen is still up to it this coming SR season,  He did well in the two June test - albeit with a low real work rate.

He got lost in the third test against England and ran off to Japan to escape playing in the RC and when he did play in the EOYT tests what he did he do well - only a pity he did it extremely rarely.

Hew ios knocking harder than Lo uw 

After being useless in mo st tests the useless :Louw was in the fortunate position to cause two turnovers.    If Coetzee was in the same position the result would have been the same.   Probably easier - since  in all the tests Louw played in he made 3 turnovers - inclusive of the two mentioned. 

Mozart

Just goes through ESPN stats and see what his tackle count was compared to his MTR and his ball carries were.   In the famous French test where he made the turnovers his stats were as follows:-

He played for 17 minutes and made on 2 tackles at a time the French were constantly attacking. 

In the Scotland test he also played for bout 16 minutes and  handled the ball twice with no territory gain and made the amazing number of 1 tackle only.  The rest of his stats were all zero.

You can also go into the rest of the Louw stats and you will find equally low level to non-existent value in games.   In two of his starting games he made 14 tackles and missed 6.  If that happened  to any other player you would have written books about it.   AMAZING how you tried to cover for this player.    

If you can twist the above into anything constructive you must be the most amazing rugby hoax ever.   

Louw made three turnovers in the French test alone. I know he made at least one against Los Pumas. So, in only two tests, we have debunked Mike yet again. 

Merry Tammuzmas, ya filthy animal. 

AO

Read my season greetings message and please know I do not suffer fools like you easily,   You make a claim - when did the third turnover happened in the French test?    

You are known to invent falsehoods about games and I would love to see that one happening.   But then Mozart is mot much better either.   He invented a fable about how Mostert never lost line-out on own throw in line-outs and looking at the games yesterday I found 3 of those.    Wonderful  how BS flourish when it cones to you two,            

How about you just give us your source, Mike. You've been asked a number of times and you keep dodging, so I guess that means the source is your thumb.

I have watched all games this year and other than the two turnovers made by Louw in the Frnch game - manna from heaven for the Louw supporters - I can only remember 1 further turnover made by Louw.   

I watched it carefully since for a year now AO has claimed that Louw was a turnover specialist based on the 2015 WC stats - which by 2018 he definitely was not anymore.   I in fact found that the much despised Du Toit made more turnovers than he did this year in tests,

Fact is that up to 2015 Louw had my full support as a loosie - he never was an opensider - where a very high work rate and pace are required - bit then he was better than the other contenders.    However,  he is even slower than he was in 2015 and when eh played at blindside this year he was a disaster,   I referred to the fact that in two tests he made 14 tackles and missed 6 - in games where he was on the bench  and played for a total of 36 minutes he made 3 tackles in total,     That is more or less in line with 7 tackles a game he normal makes when starting.

However - possession turnovers require that a player must be very close to where tackles are  made and the question arises whether  pace deficiency does not become a  determining factor in such cases.   Take for instance the case of the famous two turnovers,    The French were trying to use their forwards to carry the ball,   In both cases Louw was within two meters from where the tackle was made.    How often does that happen in games insofar as Louw is concerned?   Extremely rare.

Lets get to the next issue as an example - on Saturday playing for Bath Louw tried to make a turnover and got promptly penalized for the purpose.   That is typical what the situation is with Louw at present - he is more likely to be penalized than he is to make tur novers.   .                    .     

How many turnovers did Du Toit make?

He made 5 compared to the 3 of  Louw - not many more, but that shows how really poor Louw was.   Incidentally De Allende also beat Louw in that department with 6 turnovers - one of which resulted in the try scored by Pollard in the Scottish game.  .   

And how much game time did he have compared to Louw, ev en if your thumbsucked numbers are to be believed?

Sure

But he did thee times the amount that Louw did in the tests he played in.

Sure

But he did three tests three times the amount that Louw did in three tests he started in .

OK - Very easy - go and see the performances of Du Toit and Louw in the Home Argentine test - ESPN stats.   Net tackles made 5 for Louw and 18 for Du Toit,     

OK - Very easy - go and see the performances of Du Toit and Louw in the Home Argentine test - ESPN stats.   Net tackles made 5 for Louw and 18 for Du Toit,     

OK - Very easy - go and see the performances of Du Toit and Louw in the Home Argentine test - ESPN stats.   Net tackles made 5 for Louw and 18 for Du Toit,     

The source for the turnovers, Mike. The turnovers.

Here is what you'll never understand. The tackle numbers mean nothing if you don't take into account the role of each player. These two shots from the Argentina game will hopefully help you understand Louw's role. He is not a primary tackler, he is a fetcher that attacks the breakdowns. This is exactly how he made one of the crucial turnovers against France: hovering the tackle and then sniping the breakdown.

Most of the tackles made by forwards like Steph, Mostert, the props etc. are fringe tackles around the rucks. Obviously there are a lot of these tackles to make in every game. The tackles below (I took a few of Steph's from the Argentina game) are typical for tight forwards: tackling first receivers from the breakdowns who carry to set up the next phase, and stopping drives around the fringes.

Below, again, we can see Louw working the breakdown attempting to slow Argentina ball, while Steph is hovering wide to make the tackle in tandem with Faf on A1, who will receive the pass from the scrumhalf and carry it in to set up the next phase for Argentina.

Hope this helps, but I doubt it.

Hovers means zip if the hovers result in nothing,   Tackles count - but missed tackles are seriously problematic.   No I am not convinced at all - so try again.   

It is very difficult to deal with Du Toit - he is the one SA player who make sure the ball is placed near to perfect when he is tackled and furthermore the players he tackles are often going backwards in tackles.

But the hovers is meaningless as the prime function of loosies.   How many times are what you claim is valuable - not done by props and other Tight 5 players?.   Fact is I am sick and tired to hear flimsy excuses for defective players and attacks on players who contribute positively in games,   The typical example is Alberts who rarely went into tackle situations and preferred to stand outside of breakdowns thus made no contribution in ball protection and recovery,  Louw is not much better.    

No I am not convinced at all - so try again.

You don't need to be convinced. This is a case where you either understand how the player is utilized on the field, or you simply continue to judge things according to your generalized preconceived notions in Stats Fantasyland where everyone has to make the same number of tackles regardless of their role, otherwise they're slacking. I don't care either way.

Listen - if he is effective in his utilization it would be fine - but there is no real indication that Louw is.    He has tried too many times to be effective and landed on his bum outside of mauls.   

Stats  about activities like tackles made and missed at least give an indications of what really happens in some respects in games - fairy tales about what you claim is effective utilization is totally meaningless and not proven as fact.   The same can be said about ball carries and distances gained,   

However, one can not discuss rugby issues with prejudiced people and that means that all kind of BS will be dug up to justify substandard players like Louw and real facts are ignored,    

You ae always trying to disprove statements are made and so you have ample time top prove me wrong as to takeovers.   I wrote from what I have seen and remember.- so you are welcome to pro ve me wrong,