Mighty Stormers strangle the Bloo Bools....

Overrated Lomp departs, the Bools scrum is monstered and the Stormers exploit Bools mistakes. MOM Stephanie is stepped by Lomp and misses a tackle for a try among 5 tackles he misses, loses one lineout and loses the ball 3 times....but the blind media give him the MOM. How can we improve with this kind of favouritism? Allende misses Jumbo to set up a Bools try. Kriel in another anonymous performance misses a tackle for a try. Pollard looks extremely rusty. There aren't many Boks that looked good. But Etzebeth was good, Snyman quite active, the young Stormers props were good and Du Preez was solid.....that was about it. Early days, but the skill levels are well below European levels. One last thought....the jerseys were a disgrace. One team should have been in white.

 G'Onya Stormers.....awesome stuff from a well oiled machine to start off proceedings. I'd be a very worried Sharks supporter....be afraid...very afraid...

 Mozart
Talking crap as per normal.   The players who impressed on the day was Du Plessis at flyhalf, the Stormers centers with De Allende leading the way and Marais at full back.
Amongst the forwards Du Toit was outstanding with 2 line-out steals and a very effective ball carrying performance.    Your hatred of Du Toit is so obvious you are crapping yourself.
Etzebeth was not effective in ball carries and was stripped of possession once as well.
Pollard was really disappointing and if one calls it rustiness one is missing the poor decision-making he displayed and his kicking and passing game was dismal.   There need to be a drastic mental change here as well.
    
     

 De Allende played well, it seems like his lost quite a bit of weight....nice to see him in form and playing with confidence.

 Pollard should never have started. Maybe given 30 minutes at best. 
I underestimated the Stormers. Their mobile pack looks like it means business. 

Making 7 tackles and missing 5.....one for a try.....is not outstanding. Getting sidestepped by Lomp is not outstanding. Running 7 times and not beating a tackle is not outstanding. Losing the ball twice is not outstanding. The South African habit of playing favourites elevated Lambie and Stephanie again this weekend......but the characteristics that failed them on the NH tour were obvious to an honest observer. Until we can look at our players objectively and demand that they improve their weaknesses.....no progress will be made.

 Why did you lie about the ball carries and the fact that Du Toit took two line-outs from opposition throw?   Your assessment can best be described as BS - fun to red because of the fact that it showed prejudice and an indication that you know better than the experts who knows the game.
I rate Etzebeth - but he was easily stripped in possession and was very ineffective in ball carries.   He definitely made very little contribution to the game outside the Tight 5.   His carries are clumsy and he is brought down very easily by tacklers.   That makes him a very limited contributor from a performance perspective.         

As I have told you several times before, the numbers are updated after their original posting....I never lie. You, however, do.....here are the updated lineout stats: 4 Eben Etzebeth - 3 - ...... 5. Pieter-Steph du Toit - 1 1 ....... As you can see Stephanie took one lineout and one on opposition throw. What that doesn't show is this: ....... Snyman - 4 1 ....... Snyman took one ball on opposition throw....that ball was Stephanie's ball. .......... There now you have the whole picture, no need for any more lies.

You are famous for distorted match descriptions and player evaluation -- so I can never trust what you write.  
Whether you like it or not Du Toit was the MOM and he thoroughly deserved it.     

Yep he was the MOM which was an indulgent bit of favouritism.

 The biggest and most obvious problem is the Stormers lightweight back three in the backline. I fear these guys will find it hard going defending against more skilled backs.Viljoen though is a good find.Allende had a great game. need per haps one bigger wing at least who is the deal.

 Mozart
The opening sentence contains a lie and the rest is not much better.   Du Toit went for an intercept and was not in line to tackle De Jager.   That was clear when I looked carefully at the incident.
Then he has the gall to talk about Du Toit as MOM and said it is due to favouritism - but he would not accept that Matfield's MOM against the Argentinian "B" team was not  justified.   It was just a goodbye gift.        

He was absolutely in line to tackle Lomp....Lomp was his man, as the pass was delivered he may thought there was an intercept chance, but the ball was in Lomp's hands while he was still a metre away. Then Lomp stepped him.....the commentator said 'great step by Lood de Jager' .....the man he stepped was Stephanie. He was also handed off by Ismael for his long run........shrugged off by Liebenburg for a big bust through the middle......and horribly discarded by Liebenburg for a try. Four awful bits of defence by the so called MOM. Total favouritism by the PC commentators. The best locks on the park were Etzebeth and Snyman who took Stephanie's lineout at minute32.

 Moozart
You must stop misreporting the situation.  I watched the game again and  you lied about that De Jager situation.   It is in fact a situation with you that you totally misrepresented the whole thing - but that is standard with you.  
You also wrote elsewhere that Du Toit did not effect turnovers on the deck.   The first turnover within 2 minutes in the game was done by Du Toit.   
Look I know you dislike some players - but you totally misrepresenting  game situations is becoming a bore.   Your comments are based on false interpretations and lies - and that is a fact.    
 

Nope the facts are exactly as I presented them.