Monday morning funny

I have to reproduce this classic in it's own string....it's too funny to miss. Clever Mike engages in a bit of rudimentary algebra and in the same spirit, I respond :

"You also made a remark about where Goosen attempted the tackle on Whitelock.  Now lets work it out.   Whitelock with the arm stretched out is 3 meters.  He barely reached the tryline after coming down in the tackle.   Take off 1 meter for the stretch - and that means he was tackled at 3 meters out came down at 1 meter out and reached out -   2 meters is allowed for momentum.   Can your addled brain work that one out?"  ........says Clever Mike           

Let's see x +2+1 =5. And if we solve for x we get 2....hahahahaha....ja we have to allow 2 metres for momentum.  I think that's Newton's fourth law of motion......or perhaps the distance a lightie is displaced when hit by a moving object. Weeeeheee!

But seriously OOm I think you have missed the fact that the arm protrudes from the shoulder, which means you have to subtract the neck and head......unless of course, bwaahahahahahahahaha, Whitelock has 48 inch arms.

Mozart

I thought you know the difference between centimetres and inches - but that is really now clear  that even in that case you know F-all.  Hell - but you are ridiculous.     

OK = lets start from the beginning with the Whitelock try episode you first said Goosen missed the tackle - then you produced a video - which proved it was not so.   Then suddenly you changed your whining from "missed tackle" to "run over" - which again was clear from the video as rubbish.  

I then said the tackle on Whitelock was about three meters out - and you said no it was five meters out and wrote a posting going on about wrong i was on the 3 meter issue.   That I assume was because you wished to stick with your false ubterpretation that Goosen was "Run Over" by Whitelock.  In th response I saud Whitelock came down about a meter short and momentum allowed hin to stretch out and reach over the line to score a try.

The whole argument arose from whether Goosen missed the tackle on Whitelock - and since even your video indicated that you were wrong - you then start trying to divert the  discussion - so as to be the good member.  

I do not care what you write - as long as you stick to the truth and not take liberties with that.    You were told by Sasue already in 2012 that your interpretation is wrong - you then shut up and afterwards ran back to it when one of your putrid defence favourites (Morne Steyn) came into flack

Mozart

The master in diversion and duplicity,  You were caught out lying and now you want to divert the issue as per normal.  The issue is simple,  You said Goosen missed a tackle on Whitelock - when you were caught out on that one - next you said Whitelock ran over Goosen - another blatant lie - then you said the tackle attempt was 5 meters out while I said three meters - all of this because you lied about the issue in the first place and then all kind of diverting actions followed.   Stick to the truth if you can and all will be fine.  

Actually OOM Goosen made contact beyond the 5 metre scrum line.....and then Whitelock took three steps, one, two three....to get to about the two metre line after which he plopped down r and stretched out. The problem was the three steps. Is the penny dropping or are you still in denial.

By the way, I know of no rugby player that can stretch out 3 metres.....unless we put boots on a 7' orangutan. A bigger version of you ....hahahahahaha.

 Mozart

Where so you get that fancy glasses of you from - the ones that make you see the non-existent.

That description o the Whitelock try is the biggest load of BS I have read in a long time.  If you have seen that you must be living in cloud 9,   ".....and then Whitelock took three steps, one, two three....to get to about the two metre line after which he plopped down"

Before you write tripe - please think.  Why did Whitelock plonked down short?   Did it happen without any reason whatsoever?  

Fanciful world we live in,   

 Shezza

"Slimy" is not a nice wat to describe our Mozart.  "Slippery like an eel" us a better one.  

"slimy"....ah well that's what you get for telling the truth....look at it again:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIAXDEKqQwg

Goosen makes contact with Whitelock  outside the 5 m line. He is too high so Whitelock continues forward for three strides, with Goosen hanging on.  Strauss who is trailing finally catches up and hammers into Whitelock from behind, bringing him down. But he has come too far and the lock stretches across the line.

Goosen was injured, but cotinued to play as we can see from the next try, where his poor tackle on Nonu gets the ABs going.

You guys have a fantasy about Goosen, it's your perogative....but that doesn't change the facts, two weak Goosen tackles....two AB tries.

I manipulated no facts Dave....the incident is exactly as I described it. The problem wasn't the injury it was going high. If he went in at the knees, albeit on one leg, he could have stopped him. Too many Boks go high on these crucial tackles.

As for Fury he has never been explosive....you have only just twigged to the fact. So to me he was pretty much the old, slow off the mark Fury that Jean always lost when he made a break. What Fury has always done and it served us well on the YE tour is seal off the outside by coming forward. Unfortunately your man JJ has no clue on how to time the move, because he doesn't read the game.

I don't think Morne is a great player, but he knows how to play the position and doesn't get much credit. For example the second Habana try at Ellis Park was all down to Morne seeing a mismatch and passing deep in his half. His defensive play in recent years has been fine....and he is a great kicker, probably the best around as he has a bit more range than equally accurate Halfpenny.

I have no problem finding a more explosive 10, but we have to cover the kicking option. And that player has to prove it....something Lambie and Goosen , for various reasons, have failed to do.

 Oh I get 'em wrong all the time Shezza and I wasn't having a go at your hilarious "slimey".....just spelling it right. You guys just don't get it. When we are playing the ABs and a player like Nonu makes 3 metres in the tackle and offloads that springs the whole AB back up system. Watch any test, more often than not dangerous moves come from exactly that circumstance. Which is why loosies like Louw, Vermeulen and Alberts are so valuable....they stop their man dead.

Goosen is obviously fact and elusive, but believe me if he can't stop that penetration he will never survive in tests. And we still haven't seen his kicking under pressure and decision making at the death. Nothing is confirmed...all we know is he is promising and apparently injury pro ne. That's not enough to plan Bok rugby around him....yet.

Well each to his own. My philosophy is stay with the incumbent until the challenger makes his case. Neither Lambie nor Goosen have and I'm beginning to doubt they ever will.

And I'm still looking for the lock that can stretch out and place the ball 3 metres away.

If we were having this conversation 15 years ago, you chaps would have been punting Gaffie.....every bit as fast, with just as big a boot.

If you use "would've " you have to use "chosen"....hahahaha. Only kidding have a good one, we will have this debate again.

Mozart

Just a few ridculous quoted from you:-

Quote 1

"which is why loosies like Louw, Vermeulen and Alberts are so valuable....they stop their man dead."

This reminds me  so much od Read's Ellis Park try - Alberts stopping him dead - you surely remember that one.  And the fact that Alberts routine miss tackles.  Even in his best test figures on tackling - the one in Paris - his tackle stats were 9/4.   IN the Saracens game he never once made a tackle and missed one.   In the CC game against the Sharks he made 3 tackles and missed 4.   That makes him so incredible in "stopping" men dead. 

Quote 2

"Matter of fact as a defender is ineffective and a liability.   If he went in at the knees, albeit on one leg, he could have stopped him. Too many Boks go high on these crucial tackles.

I agree with the faulty technique statement - you mentioned JJ and Goosem -- nut uoi carefully refrained from mentioning the worst culprit - your idol Morne.   His technique in tackling was badly exposed in the Ellis Park test.  So why be selective?

Quote 3 

"My philosophy is stay with the incumbent until the challenger makes his case"

Stay with a player until he disgraces himself - that all along has been the problem in all codes of sport and it is already in evidence in the case of Morne - he was poor in the Eden Park and  Ellis Park tests after a dreadful 2012.  So stick with a failed player - and you cannot see it do not want to see where he failed.  Instead it is easy to manufacture garbled versions of incidents in other games to discredit possible successors.

Quote 4   

"Goosen makes contact with Whitelock  outside the 5 m line. He is too high so Whitelock continues forward for three strides, with Goosen hanging on.  Strauss who is trailing finally catches up and hammers into Whitelock from behind, bringing him down"

We are now with version 4 of the description of the same incident,  No's 1 and 2 was discussed in detail previously.  Version 3 was Whitelock "plonking down".   Now another one - "Strauss made the tackle".

How many more versions are you going to dream up to describe the same incident?

Quote 5

"His (Morne's) defensive play in recent years has been fine..."

Sure it is fine if you accept a missed tackle ratio of 19,4% - or 10 % higher than is acceptable.

Summary

Please Mozart - your deliberate efforts to try and convince people how bad possible contenders are and false representations on how acceptable and good  Morne is - is a joke.  Stade Francais found out soon enough that Morne is a limited player.   He has one advantage above contenders.   He is injury free  and has virtually never been injured - why?  Because he never goes into contact and he virtually never attempts tackles - other players must do it for him.   

I said all along that performances should determine selection - nothing else.   That  rule applies equally to all players - incumbents and contenders.  Performance assessment must be reasonable, factually-based  and objective,  Pity Morne and the other club players favoured by Meyer gets away with murder - they can sit and warm the bench and Meyer will still pick them without proven performance. 

Statistics is a useful guide - provided you take stats over a series and not in a singe game.   Selective usage of stats us unacceptable- and so is dreamed-up versions about things that is deficient in some players so as to explain away deficiencies.  

If Goosen proves that he is worth selecting based on performance - he should be selected - that applies to all players.   

Sorry - duplication.

Mozart

At least use stats regularly - you used it only when you want to criticize players you do not like and avoid them when it has a negative connotation for your favoured players.

You attacked Plisson because he had defensive lapses un his first test and make that out as him  being below par.   When I used the Morne Elis Park stats to prove that Morne even had worse defensive problems in the Ellis Park test - which you constantly tried to ignore  - I suddenly have committed a mortal sin.   I used it because the attack on Plisson was based on the stats in one test to prove that he was not good enough - but the mere fact that I pointed out that Morne had more of a problem in his umpteenth test is not allowed - because the Morne Steyn groupies never want to hear the truth about what he has done to SA rugby.          

Mozart

At least use stats regularly - you used it only when you want to criticize players you do not like and avoid them when it has a negative connotation for your favoured players.

You attacked Plisson because he had defensive lapses un his first test and make that out as him  being below par.   When I used the Morne Elis Park stats to prove that Morne even had worse defensive problems in the Ellis Park test - which you constantly tried to ignore  - I suddenly have committed a mortal sin.   I used it because the attack on Plisson was based on the stats in one test to prove that he was not good enough - but the mere fact that I pointed out that Morne had more of a problem in his umpteenth test is not allowed - because the Morne Steyn groupies never want to hear the truth about what he has done to SA rugby.          

 Mozert

Hear e my prayer::- 0

"Holy Father.   Please forgive me my dreadful rugby sin - I had the audacity to criticize the performances of the incomparable and faultless Morne Steyn and I have sinned seriously in doing so.   I promise never to repeat that terrible sin - even if there are evidence to the contrary - because it is unacceptable to his ardent supporters, whose mental and physical well being - they seems to become totally unbalanced - could be affected by my serious sin.   Let us have the patience to all join together in humble submission before St Morne - the good and incomparable  flyhalf."

Now listen here - I was not averse to comment on the issue of Plisson's  relatively minor defensive problems in the test - you went haywire about how poor his defence is.   So I must abide by the prayer and say no more.         

 Ceradyne

Plisson  was average in the test and when I saw him initially in the Stade Francois games I thought he was average.   In subsequent games I saw I was much more impressed with him.   Even an average flyhalf  is ten times better than useless Morne Steyn, is or will ever be.