FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Matfield, Schalk Steppie et al. .....the mozcroscope

Matfield, Schalk Steppie et al. .....the mozcroscope

Started by Mozart38 REPLIES538 VIEWS· 30 Sept 2014, 00:38
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Sept 2014, 00:38
#1
30 Sept 2014, 00:38#1

Well much has been said about Saturday's test. And it was surely one of the offensive explosions of the year. But it's roots are to be found in two sets of phased play...one at about the 55th minute when a series of Aussie attacks were repelled.....a try then could have been fatal.

 

The next phase attack came from the Boks comitting Oz to a muscle sapping plethora of tackles...and ending significantly in the Lambie drop. The Aussie team that played the last 10 minutes was shagged and defensive alignment fell apart.

 

 

So much so when Reinach came round the ruck he was in clear space for 30 metres. So much so that Steppie was marked by Horwill. They did well, as did Lambie, against a somewhat compromised defence. Now on to the players.

 

Hougaard got MOM, and he played quite well. His tackling and work around the fringes was very physical. That said he threw at least 4 poor passes....one Pollard took off his toes, the pass that almost led to an OZ break out try, the poor pass to Willie at the end of the half and another ball near the start that bobbled along the deck. The lad is not a crisp passer or a decisive kicker.  All this will be costly at some point.

 

Lambie gets lots of accolades and he scored a terrific try, with a dummy to beat Kuridrani and a step or two to power over the line. His drop and rolling line kick were also good, as was his good low tackle and one strong clean out.

 

But he looked like a deer in the headlights until the drop, got monstered in the tackle and sold Steppie in a huge tackle. He also left 7 points out there of missed kicks. We have seen this scenario before when Lambie came back in the S15...a good cameo off the bench, followed by a shocker in the S15 semi. If he gets elevated over Pollard which Lambie appears?

 

Matfield was great....again. A huge tackle to stop McCalman when he would have surely scored...and another on Foley also in try scoring position. A massive cleanout of Hooper that left the limpet on his back. And he formed a handling link with Schalk in most of our moves towards the death, timing the last pass to Jean perfectly for our fourth try.

 

Jean had  some poor moments in handling...but he gained influence as the test progressed. Every run saw him gaining hard yards....breaking Kuridrani's tackle for example. And he put in a massive hit on Foley as well as smashing Hooper down singlehandedly 2 metres from our line....not an easy ask. His first try was more a question of good backing up, but in the second he had to beat a tackle right on touch.

 

The we come to Steppie. Really another busy bee, not very effective bee performance. He was monstered once by Kuridrani, run over by Hooper and taken down easily in the tackle.....until he had a barndoor gap outside by Horwill with Foley slipping as he turned to help. He executed that well enough...but any good centre would have done the same.

 

The thing to look at is the Ashley Cooper try. When Kuridrani breaks free Steppie checks briefly to avoid AC who is running right next to him. AC accelerates and Step is left in the dust....he needed to stay on AC who was open, but he never did. Was it acceleration, pace.....a mental lapse? I'm guessing a bit of all three. But I guarantee you, if that was Jean AC would never have lost him. Pace is an issue.

 

 

Pollard had some shaky moments, But he attacked the advantage line effectively and put himself about. Things happen faster at this level....the Hooper charge and near charge of his conversion showed that he is still learning.

 

 

The other observation is about Coetzee who had a good game, but we were beaten on the deck by Hooper, who also ran over Coetzee for good measure. The fact is, if he is our primary breakdown asset, he has to be in there. Too many times Vermeulen was fighting a lone battle, while Coetzee was standing at first receiver. He may or may not be an effective fetcher, but he can't fetch from 10  channel.

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
30 Sept 2014, 00:42
#2
30 Sept 2014, 00:42#2
 Matfield and Schalk great but Jan average.....bwhaaahaaaaa what a load of sh1t
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Sept 2014, 00:46
#3
30 Sept 2014, 00:46#3
Every point made is correct I believe ...I suppose you haven't even grasped how AC gassed Steppie for the try . Of course not, you have no vision....the mind boggles at how much you must miss....really.
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Sept 2014, 00:56
#4
30 Sept 2014, 00:56#4
 Moz, one has to put those four poor passes of Hougaard into perspective. Hougaard had one hell of a work rate in this game. He handled the ball all of 132 times, passing it 117 times. At least half of those passes, if not more went to attacking forwards. That was what broke the Aussies' backs, paving the way for the subs to come on and deliver the knock-out punch.

To put Hougaard's work-rate more into perspecptive, you have to look at the number of passes by the entire team. Hougaard made more passes than the rest of the team. The total number of passes by the Boks were 212. Hougaard, with Matfield, were also the most effective defenders. Hougaard made 15 tackles without missing one. Matfield made 16 but he also missed 2.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Sept 2014, 01:05
#5
30 Sept 2014, 01:05#5
I agree Vlag, which is why I took issue with the OOm saying he had a poor game. He didn't. But I have to say it was almost back to the things he was superb at in 2011 on the wing. I think he should back himself more to make some breaks ala Joost. To me he should be trying to be a Joo st scrummie and not a more technical scrummie like F du Preez.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
30 Sept 2014, 01:09
#6
30 Sept 2014, 01:09#6
 Moffie your points have fuck all to do with correction and everything to do with your path etic bias
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
30 Sept 2014, 01:30
#7
30 Sept 2014, 01:30#7
 The Morons in unison
First of all lets deal with the poor passes.   At one stage just before halftime - when the Springboks were attacking - he made 3 poor passes in one extended phase of the play. Routine passes at that.   But thn it is better to forget about those - because othwwise the two morons pet hate - Cobus Reinach - may then play
Reinach did not beat 3 defenders in the process - but  according to them  he did nothing worthwhile so it can be safely downgraded.   If one of the moron favourites did it - a book will not be enough to contain their praisesinging.   The same applies  to the Serfontein line break.   If De Jongh happened to do that the extolling would cover 210 screens on this site.
The rubbish flowing out from the Morons make for entertaining reading - that is if you are in a loony bin - nobody sensible would find it funny .   



SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
30 Sept 2014, 01:39
#8
30 Sept 2014, 01:39#8
 Actually for once I fully agree with Vlag on Hougaard....He was bloody good and has been my choice 9 for ages
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Sept 2014, 01:41
#9
30 Sept 2014, 01:41#9

It was a break through open field OOM, but you are right, the last thing I'd like to see is Reinach starting again st the AB. Who needs to repeat our Crusaders humiliation.

 

The rubbish as you put it,  is the stuff you never saw....like Steppie's failure to close with AC. If he ran as hard and as fast as Hougaard did, no try would have been scored.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
30 Sept 2014, 02:21
#10
30 Sept 2014, 02:21#10
 Mozart
Absolute tripe - you were asked previously to provide ex\amples on what you base your assessment of Reinach's performance in that game - and you chickened out
Look at the following stats and tell me where the poor performance stems from:-
Reinach0/007/26/74414126/10/010/0
His passing was quick and accurate but according to the Mozart system McLeod was better:-
McLeod0/002/15/2800001/10/000/0
Loonie bin stuff - that lot.   Mozart  just tell me - and I would sympathise - are you finding the straitjacket very had to wear?
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Sept 2014, 02:43
#11
30 Sept 2014, 02:43#11

Two crucial turnovers, one penalty and missing at the first three rucks. And then there is this against the Highlanders....notice the defensive effort or lack thereof:

 

SHReinach0/005/29/9160120 0/10/000/0
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
30 Sept 2014, 07:17
#12
30 Sept 2014, 07:17#12
 Mozart
You were lieing as per normal when referring to the Crusaders game and the one of the Highlanders was dishonest as well.    On of the trunovers was a kick directly into touch and let tpo a line out in the Sharks half of the field nothing more.  Box kicks has foound touch in rare cases - in the case of Reoinach very rarely - but one such mistake suddenly became a career-defining incident inyour book.   
The missing at the first three rucks are utter BS dreamed up by you to make your lies sound acceptable.   Fact is the commentator was complimentary as to Reinach's perfpormance in that game -  but Mozart tried desperately to chicken out from explaining his criticism -  and now comes up with this load of utter deceptive crap.
Advice - try and be honest in your assessment of games.   A typicl example is that you are describing De Villiers's performance on Saturday as good - when in fact h was instrumental in losing ball possession  FIVE times - obviously no mention is made of that one by him.       
     
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Sept 2014, 12:16
#13
30 Sept 2014, 12:16#13
 We had 38% of the possession, which means that we had control of the ball for more than 60% of the game. If a player looses the ball five times during such a game, it really isn't much to write home about. You have to few it in context. I have said hundreds of times that the little bits of stats that are available in the media does not say a lot.

The number of turnovers conceded also do not tell the full story. How many of those turnovers are really the fault of the player who last had possession? How many times does a player not loose possession because his loose-forwards/support players did not do their part? When a player goes to ground with the ball he has to release the ball. If he doesn't, he gets pinged. If his support players are not there to take over when he goes to ground, he will lose possession........ guaranteed. I am not saying that this is what has happened in all of JDV's turnovers but  it is possible that it has happened a number of times.

Much is being made of the "massive role" of the subs that came on and "win" the game. This test was an example of a well executed plan. We had loads of possession and we did not lose it. Those players in the first 60 minutes of the game made a hell of a contribution in grinding Aus down for the subs to come in and seal off the game in the last quarter. That was what won us the game. A massive effort by 23 players and not only the "brilliance" of the subs in the last 20 minutes.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
30 Sept 2014, 12:43
#14
30 Sept 2014, 12:43#14
 Ceradunce
YThe idea that you grind out a win when in fact up to minute 70 you were ebhind inthe score sheet is a joke in bad taste.   
The Aussies were on attack and looked like winning the game until the breakaway by Serfontein.   By that time we were in bad shape.   That break let to a try.   The next try came after the Aussies was again on the attack and was penalized twice - th second one being a kick at the corner.   We got the ball - but the resulting moove made no headway and was going sideways - no Springbok carrier was making headway at all. Reinach got the ball and held it back just long enough to cause hestitation among  the defenders to open up a small space for Lambie to use - it was a split second apss timed 10%.
The breakaway by Reinach resulte din the third try.  
For 70% of the time we made no headway at al and looked set to lose the game.   This dream of tiring out the players giving the bench players an easier game - is ridiculous.   The starting line up - with a few exceptions made no impression - the only playes who contributed to the first 70 minutes were Verrmeulen, Coetzee and to a lesser extent Etzebeth and Beast. The rest made blunder after blunder - putting the team under serious pressure.   
If lambie and Reinach did not come on and amde a huge difference - the score line might have looked a hell of a lot different.    Of the bench players who made a difference -
*   Lambie, Burger and Reinach made a really positve contribution;
*   Njakane and Van der Merwe was better than the starters; and
*   Botha and Pietersen did squat to enhance the eam performance.   
I accept that your excuse - but it is of no real value at all.  The fact that the Springboks made very little headway in the first 70 minutes had more to do with player blunders than anything else.   Even in the end the Aussies was attacking when the two beakaways of Serfontein and Reinach occurred - so pleasse stop talking KAK in an effort to discredit the achievement of players like Lambie and Reinach.     
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
30 Sept 2014, 12:43
#15
30 Sept 2014, 12:43#15
 Ceradunce
YThe idea that you grind out a win when in fact up to minute 70 you were ebhind inthe score sheet is a joke in bad taste.   
The Aussies were on attack and looked like winning the game until the breakaway by Serfontein.   By that time we were in bad shape.   That break let to a try.   The next try came after the Aussies was again on the attack and was penalized twice - th second one being a kick at the corner.   We got the ball - but the resulting moove made no headway and was going sideways - no Springbok carrier was making headway at all. Reinach got the ball and held it back just long enough to cause hestitation among  the defenders to open up a small space for Lambie to use - it was a split second apss timed 10%.
The breakaway by Reinach resulte din the third try.  
For 70% of the time we made no headway at al and looked set to lose the game.   This dream of tiring out the players giving the bench players an easier game - is ridiculous.   The starting line up - with a few exceptions made no impression - the only playes who contributed to the first 70 minutes were Verrmeulen, Coetzee and to a lesser extent Etzebeth and Beast. The rest made blunder after blunder - putting the team under serious pressure.   
If lambie and Reinach did not come on and amde a huge difference - the score line might have looked a hell of a lot different.    Of the bench players who made a difference -
*   Lambie, Burger and Reinach made a really positve contribution;
*   Njakane and Van der Merwe was better than the starters; and
*   Botha and Pietersen did squat to enhance the eam performance.   
I accept that your excuse - but it is of no real value at all.  The fact that the Springboks made very little headway in the first 70 minutes had more to do with player blunders than anything else.   Even in the end the Aussies was attacking when the two beakaways of Serfontein and Reinach occurred - so pleasse stop talking KAK in an effort to discredit the achievement of players like Lambie and Reinach.     
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
30 Sept 2014, 13:28
#16
30 Sept 2014, 13:28#16
Jaaaaaa ou Maaikie. Your glass is always half empty. The way in which the Boks went about to win this game contradicts everything that you have been talking about and everything that you have been predicting as well. That is why you are so p!ssed off and that is why you are so desperately looking for some way that you can keep on strumming your old one-string guitar.

I have not discredited or tried to discredit any player. In fact, unlike you who are still looking for scape-goats, I have accredited each and every player in that team. Let me repeat what I have said:

"Those players in the first 60 minutes of the game made a hell of a contribution in grinding Aus down for the subs to come in and seal off the game in the last quarter. That was what won us the game. A massive effort by 23 players and not only the "brilliance" of the subs in the last 20 minutes."


Of course Lambie, Reinach and Burger made positive contributions but would they have been able to do that, had the previous players not worn the Aussies down? Are you refuting the role that Hougaard played in keeping us on the attack with our forwards lodging one charge after the other?

Would Nyakane and Van der Merwe have been better if the started? Would they have laid a better foundation for a late charge than what Beast and Jannie did? What would their state have been after 60 minutes? We wouldn't know.

Your little string of stats are the only shred of evidence that you have that Botha and Pietesen did nothing. You do not watch the game as you should. I think that you stare at the TV and listen to hear if the commentators mention a player's name and if you do not hear it, you check if you can find some stats to run him down.

You are mentioning that they had more blunders than anything else, yet they had 59% of the possession. Is that a blunder? we camped in the Aus half of the field for4 62% of the time . Is that a blunder? We managed more offloads. Is that a blunder? We won 151 rucks (95%). Is that a blunder? We made 153 tackles (88%). Is that a blunder? We did not lose a single scrum. Is that a blunder? We did not lose a single line-out. Is that a blunder? We only conceded 4 penalties and zero free kicks. Is that a blunder?


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
30 Sept 2014, 17:18
#17
30 Sept 2014, 17:18#17

" The Aussies were on attack and looked like winning the game until the breakaway by Serfontein.   By that time we were in bad shape"...says the OOM

 

In fact we were ahead by 11 points to 10. The OOM lives in a parallel universe where being behind means you are in front. The truth is the Aussies were reeling at that stage just hanging on.

 

The Steppie break came from a marking mismatch...lock on centre combined with an overlap. The Reinach break came from zero, I mean zero blindside defen ce at the ruck. Only in the case of the Lambie try was their a semblance of decent defence and even there Kuridrani was marking Lambie and made the fatal mistake of buying the dummy because an overlap was beckoning.

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
30 Sept 2014, 22:01
#18
30 Sept 2014, 22:01#18
 The simple facts are that for 60 minutes the Boks pack was matched by Oz.
The whole world knows that the bench made an impact and no one more than Burger.Lambie and Reinach did their part as did Nykane and Van Der Merwe.Sorry but the tight 4 peformance was not convincing. Time for the show pony to retire. Out goes ou pa. Marcell deserves a start. Get in a decent lock partner for Etzebeth.
All very obvious.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
30 Sept 2014, 22:07
#19
30 Sept 2014, 22:07#19
 Mozart
Being in the le ad by one point gained at minute 65 - was NOT in good shape.  The Aussies were attacking and a penalty could have resulted .   Anyone not realizing that the Springbok never really until the Serfontein break was matchwinners must have their head read - they are delusional.   
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
30 Sept 2014, 22:19
#20
30 Sept 2014, 22:19#20
Beenkop Willemse or Lood should be partnering Etzebeth.  
Agreed Marcel v/d Merwe must start
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Oct 2014, 01:17
#21
01 Oct 2014, 01:17#21
Why must Marcel start. He looks like a border line player to me....a perfectly ordinary prop who hasn't shown diddly scrumming wise throughout the S15. Now all of a sudden he supposed to be a 130 kg monster scrummer. The stuff guys believe is seriously funny. 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Oct 2014, 03:28
#22
01 Oct 2014, 03:28#22
 Mozart
The problem we have here is that Jannie is good for two or three scrums and then becomes poorer with eveery scrum - he runs out of gas quickly nowadays. .   Is he really still up to standard - especially since his contribution to play other than scrumming does not really is a house on fire either.   I am not uttely convinced by Van der Merwe either - but over a 60 minute period.in games he is a better proposition than Jannie is.      
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
01 Oct 2014, 11:46
#23
01 Oct 2014, 11:46#23
 So many unanswered questions, aren't there, Maaikie?

"I am not uttely convinced by Van der Merwe either - but over a 60 minute period.in games he is a better proposition than Jannie is."


I hope you are not talking about test matches because Vd Merwe has not even had 30 minutes of game time in total, after 4 tests. If you are referring to games other than tests matches, they are irrelevant because you just cannot compare them to test situations.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Oct 2014, 17:15
#24
01 Oct 2014, 17:15#24
Before a player becomes a Bok tighthead, there ought to be clear evidence he can scrum with the best. From what I have seen of Marcel, he is a technically unschooled prop. Can we cite any examples of great scrumming from him in the S15. In tests he has come on at the end when the scrumming energy is down. In those brief experiences he has conceded penalties and had one good scrum against NZ. In the very next scrum he was flat on his face on the deck again.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Oct 2014, 20:16
#25
01 Oct 2014, 20:16#25
 Mozart
When a player showed serious deficiency in scrumming - like Jannie did constantly in recent tests - he should not eb allowed to continue in the job.   Jannie can still last two or three scrums and then decline sets in - is that what is required from a Tight Head?    
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Oct 2014, 00:07
#26
02 Oct 2014, 00:07#26
Oh balls Jannie struggled against the Bargies, who have subsequently been neutralized by scrumming in penalties....he has been strong in our remaining tests. He is the only player we can have confidence in going into a crucial test....if Marcel was chosen the ABs would have a special plan for him, something they are rather good at. Please use what little brains you have and stop coming up with rubbish.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Oct 2014, 00:16
#27
02 Oct 2014, 00:16#27
 Ha - bloody ha.   Jannie was not strong in any test this year.  Maybe keeping up with less going back in some tests than in others.   Plenty of penalties given away too.    He lasts aboutwoscrums looking adequate and then the caving in starts - one element is certain -he loses gas quickly.
Your brains have stopped functioning properly years ago - or basically you do not see what you donn't want to see.   Added to that you dream up lies to discredit players threatening ypour favourites.    
You have the opportunity to watch the scrumming on Saturday - the first two or three scrums will be acceptable - watch what happens after that. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
02 Oct 2014, 00:39
#28
02 Oct 2014, 00:39#28
 Moffie stop lying about Marcel conceding penalties and falling on his face. He exposed you for your ignorance when he kicked the Kiwi s front row into touch. My guess is you are still smarting.
Much like Serfontein not being able to make a break. Give it up old man yo u are clueless
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Oct 2014, 00:41
#29
02 Oct 2014, 00:41#29

3 Jannie du Plessis

A much-improved performance in the scrums with a couple of solid right shoulders and got around the park well as well.7/10 Rugby 365....Jannie in Perth
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
02 Oct 2014, 00:53
#30
02 Oct 2014, 00:53#30
 Moffie typically you are the lone voice on a player as you are so fucking rugby ignorant. Maybe you should ask the board who they would want at tighthead.....Jannie or Marcel you ignorant old man. 
Ask the question old timer
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Oct 2014, 00:56
#31
02 Oct 2014, 00:56#31
I'm not smarting Vetsak. There were two scrums against NZ. The first scrum resulted in a switch to the Bok because NZ was up and splintered. In the second scrum Marcel was flat on his face but the ball came out and the ref let it go. Then Barrett tossed Lood into touch.....game over .
AG
AgPleezDeddyClub Pro900 posts
02 Oct 2014, 01:02
#32
02 Oct 2014, 01:02#32
Schalk was awesome, didn't know he still had that level of perfomance in him, delighted for him considering his last few years with illness. Nowadays, not the biggest fan of Matfield, playing a 37 year old shows very shortsighted views and no planning for the future. BUT, he has been good in the matches he has played, I just don't think he should be getting game time instead of developing many of our promising young locks for the RWC (Lood, Willemse, PSDT, etc) Serfontein has been very good at 13, especially considering he's a natural 12.Play him at 12 and watch him blossom further. Jannie has been OK, again I just don't see very forward planning for the RWC especially with a very good young prop in Marcel on the bench.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Oct 2014, 01:07
#33
02 Oct 2014, 01:07#33
 APD
Matfield looks good in certain aspects of play - but his main deficiency remains heis lack of grunt in tight 5 play.   We are not showing much in scrumming and mauling and the  the reason for that can be traced back to the fact that Matfield made our Tight 5 into a Tight 4.   
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
02 Oct 2014, 01:08
#34
02 Oct 2014, 01:08#34
 You liar Marcel ripped the kiwi loose head to threads. That was met with high fives all round from his team mates for good reason. Your version is a fucking lie. Much like him landing on his face......If he dominated so much in one scrum he would hardly end up on his face the next one.
This sounds just like your complete and utter bullshit relating to Malherbe s face saving scrum performance against the Argies. You told us Malherbe landed flat on his face neglecting to mention the fact that all 4 props were in the same boat given the front rows went down simultaneously. You just lie trying to save face for Malherbe also proved you wrong.
Moffie here is a suggestion. Refrain from commenting on props for you know fuck all. We heard the same ignorant shit about Mujati and CJ.....and then tell us Cilliers should be our tighthead. ....Fuck me....how stupid are you.
AG
AgPleezDeddyClub Pro900 posts
02 Oct 2014, 01:15
#35
02 Oct 2014, 01:15#35
I completely agree Mike that he is not a physical influence and we lose some of the power in the tight 5 but I believe that in the list of people who don't deserve to be in the team he is not the first. I think Jannie should be dropped for Marcel, Oupa should be dropped for Jacques du plessis, Carr or WW. Jean should be dropped with Serfontein coming into 12 and De Allende at 13. I believe that these are more important than Matfield for now but don't get me wrong I'd much rather see one of the young locks play next to Etzebeth.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
02 Oct 2014, 01:21
#36
02 Oct 2014, 01:21#36
 Matfield has done nothing of note since his return. He is a physical liability and no longer dominates the line outs or kick offs so what's the point?
Conservatism and short sightedness selecting a washed up 37 year old ahead of Willemse, Lood, Jacques du Plessis or Lewies
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Oct 2014, 02:05
#37
02 Oct 2014, 02:05#37
Well Dave you wanted Werner Kruger and Greyling.  Guys like Flexing Faan Rautenbach were big with you....and you STIL L think Coenie is a test tighthead. Pretty stupid.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
02 Oct 2014, 02:14
#38
02 Oct 2014, 02:14#38
 Nope Moffie I rated Kruger for a short while and changed my mind. Greyling is still a good prop but has never come close to replacing Beast in any of my sides, so try again.
Faan was the best of an average bunch back then.
Damn right Coenie is good enough to be a test tighthead. Imagine being stupid enough to write him off.
3K
3ku1Pro2,580 posts
02 Oct 2014, 02:38
#39
02 Oct 2014, 02:38#39
 Okay just to pease some this shld be the bok team. Sure everyone well disagree lol.
1. The Beast 2. Strauss 3. Van der merwe 4. Willemse 5. Estebeth 6. Coetzee 7. Jacques Du Pleesi 8. Vermulen 9. Reinach 10. Pollard 11. Cheslin Kolbe 12. Jan Serfointain 13. Damian De Allende 14. Cornal Hendricks 15. Willie Le Roux
16. Bismark Du Pleesi 17. Frans Malhbe 18. Trevor Nyakene 19. Pieter-Steph Du Toit 20. Warren Whitely 21. Francois Houggard 22. Pat Lambie 23. JP Peterson/Bryan Habana
Should be Boks soon; Thomas Du Toit, Sibuso Sithole, Etienne Oustihazen, Lubabolo Mtembu, Nizzam Carr, Coinie Ouesthazen, Siya Kolsi, Seabolo Senalta, Julian Redienheys, Marnitz Boshoff, Jesse Kriel, William Small Smith. 
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news