Morne Steyn's defense

I mention previously that Morne Steyn has defensive problems and I tracked back his tackle stats as from 2012 since Mozart, Lurker and Co had a fit because of what I wrote

2012  Tests   -    44 tackles made - 4 missed   -  missed tackle ratio 8,33  - excellent record

2013  Tests   -    72tackles made - 17 missed -  missed tackle ratio 19,10 - sub-par record

2014  Tests   -    19 tackles made - 9 missed   -  missed tackle ratio  32,14 - a disastrously poor record 

Morne's poor defense really started in the RC in 2013 (in his last three tests in 2013 he made 15 tackles and missed 6 for a missed tackle ratio of 28,57) and from there went from bad to worse in 2014.  

Morne started in only 2 tests since the Perth disaster in 2014 and in one of those his tackle stats were as follows:-

Tackles made 7  -   tackles missed 5  - missed tackle ratio 41,66

From the excellent stats in 2012 - Morne started to go back fast and in the end he was a defensive sieve. 

Wonder about the constant attacks on defense off De Allende and the much worse performance of Morne is constantly ignored.   Another case of blatant prejudice with no regard to reality.

Now I await a response from the Prejudiced 3 and will do the same iro De Allende iro tests he started in.      

For me Morne was okay as a defender, not great, but okay. He seemed to start his career of quite weak in that department, and then he seemed to get progressively better as he built up experience. It appears, based on your stats, that his defense tapered off again in the later part of his career. Just at a quick look, it looks to me like that period in the middle, where his defense was at its best, both the Boks and the Bulls enjoyed their greatest success in recent times. I wonder if there is a link. On considering it a while though, probably not, because those same years, saw great players like Matfield, Bakkies, Du Preez, Burger, Habana, Juan Smith, John Smit, Bizzie, etc etc etc all hitting their prime. So probably more a case of a batch of really good players than anything to do with Morne's defense.  

I already ran Morne's test defense stats in the past.

Morne's test tackle success at flyhalf (2009 - 2016) is 88% (I disregarded games against minnows like Namibia, Samoa, Fiji etc, those would probably add another percentage point if taken into account). He was an extremely secure tackler especially in the 2009 - 2013 period. Matter of fact, he managed a 100% tackle record in 25 tests, while dipping below 70% in only 5 tests (3 of those his last three).

His overall tackle success of 88% is about 10% better than De Allende's current success (around 78% last I checked).

Not sure why we keep getting stuck on Morne Steyn over and over though. He's bye bye gone. De Allende's tackling has improved, but as the Mike Brown incident showed, he still has fundamental flaws that surface when the heat is on.

Mozart

You apparently cannot read English - I said Morne's record in 2012 was very good - but he started going down in 2013 and was a disaster in 2014,   

I do not care what happened earlier - but I know you are too dim to understand that what counts is what happened in recent series.- an excellent defender Morne was not from 2013 onwards - dead-head.

Mozart - he was bad in the November tests in 2013 and was dropped after the Wales tests in Jue and given another chance against the AB's and Australia where he was disastrously poor - not only in defense.

He played another test in 20 17 where he was bad as well in especially defense.

I think Morne was a one-trick pony = a kicker at goal -  who could keep his defensive play reasonably well until 2012.   However - he had serious deficiencies in passing since he never attacked the gain line and stood too deep in the pocket receiving the ball standing dead sill..   Since he  passed balls too slow - the recipient was in a hopeless position with defenders on top of him.

His kicking out of hand went south in 2012 already and became worth less and less subsequently,    For example he missed to find penalty line kicks 7 times in nine matches.   

Was he good enough at flyhalf - a big NO.  

Mozart - he was bad in the November tests in 2013 and was dropped after the Wales tests in Jue and given another chance against the AB's and Australia where he was disastrously poor - not only in defense.

He played another test in 2-17 where he was bad as well in especially defense.

I think Morne was a one-trick pony = a kicker at goal -  who could keep his defensive play reasonably well until 2012.   However - he had serious deficiencies in passing since he never attacked the gain line and stood too deep in the pocket receiving the ball standing dead sill..   Since he  passed balls too slow - the recipient was in a hopeless position with defenders on top of him.

His kicking out of hand went south in 2012 already and became worth less and less subsequently,    For example he missed to find penalty line kicks 7 times in nine matches.   

Was he good enough at flyhalf - a big NO.  

You can eliminate at least 8 missed tackles between 2013 and 2014 as tracking back on scramble defence. He didn't miss one head to head tackle during any of those years. There were a couple of scrambles in a 2014s Aussie test as they spread out our defenders and ran between 10 and 12. Like I say, I have all these games on disk. So if Mr.Clever wants to analyse these games, we can very well do that. Time stamps and details and we can have a closer look. I also debunked your myth about his attacking ability. You conveniently ignore those things. He never attacked, but scored more tries than the other 10s. Very honest of you! He also contributed to over 50% of Bulls linebreaks and most of their staple attacking plays had Morné playing flatter. These were some of the most efficiently run plays in Super rugby history. What is that to Clever Mike though? Nothing. What are facts? Nothing. Because a man who decided to proclaim to the world that he is clever with a capital C deems otherwise. A man so insecure that he has to define himself as not just Mike, but Clever Mike. This distinguishing trait sets him apart from other ordinary lesser Mikes.

The big problem with Clever Mike and numbers is that he can't tell you what actually happened. He becomes very aggressive when you ask him what happened. I found that this is because he can't interpret the game at all. He tells you that patterns, plays, systems etc are all make believe terms. Literally, that's what he told me. I asked him what plays were run, who was the primary defender, was the player in question the jackal or hustle channel, what system was being used on defence, what happened during the prior phase, what areas of the field were they on. Apparently these are unimportant questions. He doesn't believe that defenders folding around the back of the ruck is a problem either. All make believe stuff, apparently. However, numbers, that's where real rugby acumen is. Clever Mike can never be saved from his delusions because he has absolute confidence that what he is doing is the only way to do it (until he has his method blow up in his face). 

Your analysis is as per normal prejudiced BS.   Morne was dropped by Meyer - once in 2012 and twice in 2014,   Reason was in the case of the 2012 tests he lost his goalkicking and as a one horse pony - he was too poor to qualify to play at flyhalf again that year.   In 2014 he went south in all aspects of play and in the Perth test he was so poor he donated the game to the Aussies.    He went to Stade Francais and they made him their bench flyhalf - he was too poor a player to start regularly for the club.  

Take it - after 2012 - he became a liability for any team he played for.

I see you have your hands full as usual. Nothing changes. 

Morné set up a wonderful try in that Aussie test, playing flat. Nice of you to reference a test that debunks what you called a fact elsewhere in the very same thread! 

When you speak of an excellent tackle record ... would that be stopping the attacker in his tracks ... or perhaps knocking him back on his ass ... or is it perhaps merely getting a handful of the attackers jersey and hanging on for dear life?

Morne was about as poor a 10 as there ever was.

His only contribution was with the boot ... nothing more.

Morné knocked them to the ground. I don't consider a hand on a defender as a successful tackle, like ESPN et all do. Morné is one of the most secure defensive 10s we've ever seen. Only Butch comes to mind as being better as far as South Africans are concerned. Morné was always very reliable. If you think otherwise cite some examples. I can give examples of Morné knocking down All Black forwards and big Samoans. 

"However - he had serious deficiencies in passing since he never attacked the gain line and stood too deep in the pocket receiving the ball standing dead sill..   Since he  passed balls too slow - the recipient was in a hopeless position with defenders on top of him."

Liewe ou verkrampte oom Maaik,

Do you know anything (and I mean ANYTHING in capital letters, bold, italic and underlined) about rugby or flyhalf play? Have you ever studied or timed the speed of Morne's passes? Have you ever assessed his technique in receiving and passing based on the KPI's related to the passing skill as it is coached at all levels of the game?

I can give you the easy answer. NO, you haven't.

In fact, Morne had one of the quickest catch and release actions of any modern flyhalf. Add to that the fact that he ran a specific angled line which actually accelerates the movement of the ball from the breakdown or set phase to the outside backs. Because of that, just about all players who played outside of him had MORE time and scored more tries.... And just about every outside back tht played next to him at provincial level went on to become Springboks, because they looked better playing outside him. I do understand these are merely FACTS and not WAHs (What actually happeneds).

Then we go one step further. Your argument is that he stood deep (more distance for the defence to cover), did not attack the gain-line (did not run closer to the defence to take away space), which in fact means he basically passed without delay... From this you conclude that he "passed balls too slow"... and the recipient was in a hopeless situation with the defender on top of him... So according to you because he started off with more space and did not take away space, the space must be less... Go study some 8th grade science to learn about the relationship between time, space and speed...

Now I ask with tears in my navy blue eyes.... How the fu.ck do you marry those contradicting snippets of information into a valid logical deductive argument???

Even if the premises you base the argument on were true, the argument is invalid as there is no logical deduction to be made. Now I state it as a matter of FACT that the premise s you based your invalid argument on are also not true to start off with, so your argument is not only invalid, but also unsound... In other words a load of bullshit in any case...

1. Now based on the fact that you use contradicting aspects, and untrue premises to try and forward a logical argument, we can logically deduce that you do not know how to argue logically.
   
2. Based on the fact that you do not even comprehend that your premises are contradicting on many levels in rugby terms, we can logically deduce that you know very little about rugby.

That was an outstanding post The Truth. Brace yourself! 

Is this a Saffa thing arguing over shit that is of no consequence ?

Morne and his metronomic kicking used to drive me bananas ,nuff said.

Your guess is as good as mine. I asked Clever Mike why does he keep talking about Alberts, Morné, Frans and some others all the time. It's not like they are going to be anywhere near the Boks! Everytime I talk about Damian he harps on about Frans and 2014! It's utterly insane. It's like his mind is time locked, sort of like a traumatised Vietnam vet or something. 

Mozart

I have never heard such BS defense of the indefensible before.   You have been attacking players for years and constantly refer to my so-called picks based on a lie 5 years ago.   I sometimes wrote to watch players as they progress in their careers and theys uddenly ion your book became picks.

Talking about a five year campaign - you are onto the same thing and cannot blame others who oppose you and refer you to your BS of the past .     Your technique has always been the same - you denigrate players who threaten selection of the over-aged duds you supported    It aklways started with BS and it continues with BS.   Tat hatred of players are mostly base3 on deception and factually flawed.

When the duds went out of contention - your attacks on the pet hate players never seize and has nothing to do with performance.   Your campaign is normally based on one-incident happenings in matches and nothing more.   

Pretty obvious your deception is exposed regularly and reference made to players who were under threat to show up why your hate campaigns against certain players continue. 

Lurkeer

Two reasons I refer to those three players - they were BS since 2012 and still playing rugby - duds they still are and the morons on site still wants them in the Springbok team - especially the failed Morne and Fat Fransie.    Your recent defense of the latter was based on lies and was clearly nullified by the actual stats on the game.   The type of nonsense you come up with is hilarious even though you tried to cover it with coach manual quotes and a pretense that what you wrote was complied with and actually happened - when it was abundantly clear it did not happen on the field of play.+    

Knocked them over on their asses, huh??

Waaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!!

Well Lurker ...clearly you rate Morne as a top flyhalf in international rugby ... probably give him a 10/10 rating ... and fabricate wondrous stories about the bozo's feats on the field.  Feats that only you can see ... oh and Mozart of course.

Personally I think that 3/10 is a better reflection of this useless weed's ability and in all honesty, I'm being generous.

He offered nothing on attack because he stood too deep ... probably due to his fear of contact ... and let's face it, hanging on to an attackers jersey was about all he could muster defensively.

Unlike you ... I've never seen him tackle anyone backwards.

He was basically there to shoot at posts and slot his touch kicks. Hmmm ... ? then again ... pity about that touch kick he messed up against the Ozzies, huh? Come to think of it ... wasn't THAT the direct cause of our loss that day?

Haaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaa!!! Yeah .. your star flyhalf single-handedly lost that test match for us.

Seems even Meyer could endure his idiocy no longer.

Then we had Alister Coetzee who also thought it wise to bring Morne in against All Blacks. Wasn't that a record score against us? If I remember correctly, Morne had a shocker. He kicked everything away. We were truly thumped that day ... thakns to ol Morne "skop verskrik" Stain.

No thanks ... you can have this chump as your hero.

CC 

There is zero chance of Lurkers player descriptions and evaluation has 1% truth to it.   He study coaching manuals and then pretend that the players do what the manuals says.   Morne never knocked a player back when tackling him - he in fact was a weak tackler.    

CleanCut, you're having a pretty lousy few days. What's happening? 

First of all, the best attacking sides for the Boks and all South African super rugby sides featured Morné at 10. As I already covered, it's a statistical fact that Morné was the single biggest catalyst for linebreaks. For the Boks, he is the only 10 to feature in a successful attacking backline since Butch. You say he always stood too deep? That makes absolutely no sense. Clearly you've fallen hook line and sinker for the journos, who know absolutely nothing about rugby. They get a lot of things wrong. Serfontein and JJ were the greatest centre pairing in the world, Damian and Kriel were the greatest centre pairing in the world, Lambie was the greatest 10 in the world, Watson was the best player in the world. How many of these did you fall for?

Here's a sample of Morné being too scared of the gainline. There are so many more examples. 

Huh?

What are you talking about? I've had a good week ... as I did last week ... and the week before that.

Little wankers like you won't change that either.

Fourie Du Preez was the brains behind it all. He dictated terms from 9. Don't you know that?

Stain was used as a kicker and that's because he had nothing else to offer. Kick for posts ... or kick the ball out ... grab a jersey and hang on for dear life cause help is coming ... and of course kick the ball away and give the opponents the possession.

When they speak of the Bulls kicking game they're actually referring to Du Preez ... not Stain.

Sorry to burst your bubble, bozo .. but Stain was there to do as he was told.

When Du Preez went on his merry way , Stains so called brilliance fell away to nothing.

Meyer's biggest mistake was playing the one dimensional Stain and not Patrick Lambie. We all knew that he had reserved the 10 jersey for his chommie. He regretted it shortly there after.  

When the Bulls had one of the two highest powered attacking seasons in Super rugby history, where was Du Preez? Du Preez was awesome, but Morné is a proven entity with and without Du Preez. I already listed some of their schemes, which completely debunks your theory. Morné was a distributor, and a decision maker. That's what he did. You don't know very much about how he was actually used.

Yep, this has been a pretty lousy week for you for sure. You're too emotionally unhinged. Your anger is causing you to lose focus, leading to errors. Clever Mike does the same thing.

The fact that Morne knocked anyone to the ground le t alone Retallick was and is still considered amazing.

Morne attacking the gain line was non-existing in all tests between 2012 and 2017  - he never did.  Instead he stood dead still when receiving balls being so far in the pocket he could never reach the gain line.   He made kicks what were in the main pure possession handover kicks and even described as BS by the commentators.   He was so bad in the June tests of the English - doing exactly like I indicated - that the PE crowd ending up booing him.

No one of our three morons have ever admitted that -

*    his poor performances have caused Meyer to drop him once in 2012 and twice in 2014; and

*    he was virtually all the time used as bench flyjalf for Stade Francais - if he was as good as they claimed - why was he the starting flyhalf only when Plisson was away on test duty or when he was injured.   

The above sob stories of Lurker matched the BS excuse of Mozart fr the balls-up he made in the Perth test in 2014.   Mozart initially totally ignored what happened and attacked Lamlie to miss a tackle - making him the reason for the scoring of the try.   When challenged about Morne's missed penalty line kick with Habana being on the point of returning after being carded - he ducked and dived and ended up still blaming Lambie for the try being scored.   The moron was delighted when Coetzee selected Morne at flyhalf in two tests in 2017 - but never once mentioned any of the balls-ups he made in those two tests.

The only reason I can find for all the excuses and other BS imaginary qualities is that Mozart at one stage wrote that 90% of the responsibilities of a flyhalf is to kick balls and Morne was a one-trick pony getting a conversion rate of circa 80% - the rest of his poor performances (also that is out-of-hand kicking was BS) were ignored by the three or as  another alternative they write skyscrapers with no foundation. about how wonderful; he was.

The fact that they support duds like Morne and Fat Fransie indicate that they do not understand the role of backlines in rugby.   When queried about that Lurker wrote nothing other than defense.   One can only accept that they are stuck with the idea that the only function of backline players are to defend.   They also claimed  Meyer - who stated publicly that the Springbok players lack the ability to play a ball-in-hand game - was an outstanding backline coach - so what can one expect from those three nit-wits.         

Come now we need some further BS from Mozart, Lurker and Pakie - it is really funny what they come up with.   

d uplixation