Wee Whitey was nowhere to be seen. Steph is better as a loose foward given the depth at lock, and the limited resources at loose forward, and limited breakdown ability of the smaller loosies anyway.
Vermuelen is better at 8. Louw had a good game of the bench. and is certainly in better form than Kolisi who seems more of a Southern Hemishphere pitch player.
Dave
I tried my best - but Mozart nd his side-kick AO insists that Mostert is the best log at 5, while in fact he is deficient.
Their other wholesale favourite is Louw - how poor can they get when assessing players?
Did I? I thought a certain player by the name of S nyman existed. Yes, Mostert didn't have the best game, but neither did Steph. I can find 5 or 6 missed tackles. His mobility was very much exposed. Whether he is at lock or flank, he still occupies the same defensive position. Mostert is being used as a scapegoat to deflect from Steph's errors. The bottom line, many of our starting forwards weren't very good. The bench was noticeably better, something I was not anticipating. Whiteley, Mostert, Kolisi and Steph all had forgettable games. That said, Mostert did make a mockery of your claims.
Louw saved the test. If this had been Steph or Damian you'd be bleating like a puffed up pigeon all week. Give the man his dues. He was excellent against the All Blacks and now against France. Cease this Petty bias.
Just watched the game again and ...
1. Snyman and PSdT is a much better lock combination.
2. PSdT is our best forward player and created one try and was involve in many tackles. Pure statistics will then award the most missed tackles to him as well. He is a must for the Bok team.
3. Wonderful flank performance from Francois Louw. His time on the field was limited and I would like to see how well he does for 80 minutes.
4. Duane Vermeulen almost disappeared in the flank position, but did extremely well when he was moved to 8.
5. I would like to see how well the combo FaF, Jantjies(10) and Pollard(12) works.
As per normal AO makes wild statements - which he cannot prove. Fact is the tackle stats iro the forwards are as follows:-
Ball Losses Tackles made Missed tackles
Kitshoff 0 9 0
Marx 0 11 0
Malherbe 0 10 0
Du Toit 1 18 4
Mostert 1 10 3
Kolisi 2 9 1
Vermeulen 0 7 2
Whiteley 1 9 1
Du Toit 0 4 0
Koch 0 5 0
Snyman 1 4 0
Louw 0 2 0
It is weird that Du Toit is always under attack by Mozart and co, while Mostert was the Tight 5 forward with the worst missed tackle ratio (23,07) - Du Toit (18,18)
One of the main problems with the Springboks remain the comparatively low tackle count of the loosies
Jantjies at 10 still scares me, but as Stormer, I can't forget his disaster season in Cape Town...warranted bias? ...I hope so.
Blikkies that combination worries me terribly from a defensive perspective.
* Faf is a wonderful player - but his defense is problematic
* Pollard is a good flyhalf - but his defense is questionable;
* Jantjies is very near to a defensive sieve.
Two of them together could be a problem - three of them together a potential disaster.
As to Vermeulen - he did vanish from site as a flank and he did much better when he was moved to 8, Whiteley on Saturday was so poor that he was replaced early.
My lock combination for the Springboks would be -
* Etzebeth @ 4
* De Jager @ 5
* Bench - Schickerling/Snyman
I frankly do not think Mostert is physical enough to be in the Tight 5 and suspect that Schickerling will be given a chance soon on the bench. Snyman is a problem case inasmuch as Erasmus regards him as a 4 only.
Our loosie position is weak and that is why I think that Du Toit will under rpesent circumstances not be moved from 7 to 5 again.
Mozart
Mostert was first given the credit for the maul by you. Looking at that maul, it was clear that the co-ordination of the maul by Mostert failed. The maul was stagnant when Mostert popped out of the maul. The maul started moving forward rapidly after that and the effective co-ordinator causing the forward movement seems to be Du Toit.
That story about the line out problems is blamed by you on Du Toit and not the inaccurate throwing in of the ball by Marx. Hence your suggestion that Mostert was the answer is dubious at best.
You admitted yourself that Mostert had a poor game - to keep him in the team because he was effective in line-outs is just not good enough.
Well Mike, why don't you tell us all where the loose forwards are on breakdown defence and point out which tackles they should be making. Until you do that, you have no proof there is a problem, merely an arbitrary expectation. A tackle quota.
Mozart
The maul was not fine at the point where Mostert is involved it was stagnant - and Mbonambi did not break away, He was behind the forwards when the maul not involving Mostert anymore started moving forward rapidly .
That is the type of BS that one has to expect from the duds misinterpreting what happened on the field of play because they dislike players and promote others in their place without regard to fact.
AO
What the hell do you know about rugby? I am afraid nothing bar BS. Defense around the fringes is primarily the responsibility of the loosies. That applies to both set pieces and breakdowns. That is why the credit for a great England defensive record against the AB's was led by the England loosies who made 53 tackles and missed only 7.
The previous week the results showed a similar trend In the case of the English - SA match the two English flanks made 17 tackles missing 1 - the two SA flanks made 12 tackles missing 3.
Now back to the French-SA test. Does it not worry you when the 5 props used and the two SA hookers made 39 tackles - missing NONE, while the four loosies used made 25 missing 4. The above did not include the effort of Du Toit when he was moved to flank to try and get some balance into the back three loosies. Bring into account only the starters the situation was pathetic as well - 30 tackles missing none as against 23 missing 4.
No AO - this has always been a worrying factor for years now. Having pace-deficient loosies always led to low tackle counts by the loosies with too many missed tackles. So Mozart had to start a new term "process tackles" to explain away the obvious problem. Laughable since through the years he was unable to explain what the difference was between "process tackles" and "tackles".
Without Mostert being anywhere near the forward movement of the maul. Why not an accurate description of what happened. Mostert did not jump any higher than the locks did the previous week - but the ball did go beyond their reach in the English test.
One can never believe the accuracy of your description of what really happen during matches - it normally is always depending more on your wish to discredit the players you dislike and promote contenders for their positions in the team.
Moz
Dunno if it's possible to check but I'm sure that for three years running the Lions also converted the most driving mauls to tries.
For long periods of those seasons it was almost a dead cert that they'd get a try each time there was a lineout somewhere near the 5m.
A strangely consistent stat considering Mostert "doesn't know how to set a maul."
All things being equal, one could be forgiven for assuming that we may have beaten England had Mostert started.
Coming from the biggest proven rugby pea brain on site the above is RICH.
I do not think he is beyond distortion of facts, He wrote about the driving maul leading maul on Saturday distorting on what happened and then when caught out about what actually happened he went ballistic as expected.
Sorry - but this attack on other members - especially when one corrects his BS is normal and to be expected from him. We should call him egg mountain Mozart.
Yeah.
It's a case of "Oh he is 5kg" below our expected weight for a lock."
Nothing else matters. Let's get Lood.
Mike
Here's a stat for you.
Mostert has started more winning games against NZ opposition than any other lock in the country.
Mostert has also started more winning matches against all opposition than any other lock in the country.
Plum
I am sorry - it is not about weight only - it s about physicality on test level.
There are lots of examples that weight on its own does not have an impact on performance. Lighter weight helps in line-out jumping - but becomes a problem when it comes to the rest of Tight 5 rugby it does have an impact.
A living example of that was Matfield - whose contribution to Tight 5 play was zero and he turned the Tight 5 into a Tight 4, Even Mozart at one stage wrote that the reason why Alberts was selected at 7 by Meyer was to help overcome the deficiency Matfield had as a Tight 5 player.
So must they select a player to be a loosie and cover for the Mostert deficiency as a Tight 5 player. Did Erasmus move Vermeulen to 7 to do an Alberts job in the case of Mostert? It obviously did not help - Vermeulen failed at 7 and the situation was only retrieved when he was moved back to 8 and the much despised (by Mozart and AO) Du Toit was moved to the number 7 position.
Sorry the selection of an all-round Tight 5 all round lock would free the loosies to play a comprehensive game required from loosies and do not result in them having to become part of the Tight 5,
I am afraid Mostert is a good enough lock on Super Rugby level - but not good enough on test level.
Saffex
What is intresting is Mosterts stats.
Through the torrid A Coetzee era and through till now, his record isnt too bad.
13 wins and 12 losses. 4 of those against the AB's.
I agree, he does lack brute physicality, but he is good in the air and his work rate is incredible.
I'd be nervous to chuck him away.
Lood goes missing far too often. He may have the weight behind him, but he is far too cumbersome and clumsy in open play.
Id have Eben, PSDT and Mostert in all of my Bok squads. each offer something different.
Enlighten us Saffex.
If you will?
I'm sure you did make your case more fully on another thread but i missed it.
He simply isnt physical enough? That all there is too it?
I wonder where he'd be better? Not in the backs since he's too big for that. Loosie is his only other option. Sadly he's got steeper competition at loosie. Especially since 33% is the skipper and won't be getting dropped. Then a queue of guys for the other two spots.
Sub then? Last thirty? Mostert isn't an explosive player. He'll bring some lineout stability to the end of the game and a few solid contributions all round. Someone explosive that's got a license to gas the tank is probably a better solution.
Mostert's strength is his engine. He frees up a spot for you because he's got the ability to make his first and last tackle of the game similarly hard.
Doubt Rassie wants to experiment too much but surely a bit of bench freedom with solid lineouts and a tank like that, It must be hard to pass up. No?
He's got a relationship with the best player on the field for SA in Marx. And that was cultivated in a winning environment. Then there's the other semi-important player for SA...Faf.
Faf didn't have a great game on Saturday but he's still easily our best.
There are lots of reasons to pick Mostert.
Both his performances and his record live up to the billing in my eyes.
So why not pick him?
Don't confuse Saffex with the wrong set of facts!
Mozart try to divert our attention away from test performances to Super Rugby performances. This from the guy who state in the past that Super rugby performances is meaningless and top performers are not good enough to play test rugby.
Why the sudden change in approach. Obviously the two could proof nothing on test level - so the next move is to go for Super Rugby as an example. That from the two members who supported the non-selection of Meyer of Lions players for the WC squad in 2015 on the basis of performances is meaningless and top performers in Super Ruby are not good enough to play test rugby.
So why the sudden change of heart? The answer is obvious - their first target is always to get at Du Toit - followed narrowly by Lood de Jager. Both were selection threats when it came to Matfield and the attacks started in 2014 and is ongoing and getting more hysterical all the time. Their screams and shrieks against especially De Jager remind me of the screams of a nymphomaniac getting her tenth climax a day - they get more hysterical after every test.
They normally have no proof to support their stories and have to invent some all the time. So lets accept their sudden-found enthusiasm for Mostert is based on their hatred and standard attacks on Du Toit and De Jager.
Not mine Mike.
I like PSDT :/
The mind of Mike...
"remind me of the screams of a nymphomaniac getting her tenth climax a day"
Do nymphos scream though ? That's the real question here.
Plum
I had an affair with one and can assure you I fled for my life after a week with severely swollen balls. Yes it happens.
Moz, a trower needs to find his jumpers, not the other way around...it is nice that Marx is used to finding Mosterdt, but he should be able to find other jumpers too. Most line outs should have a few options.
easy, easy,easy.....you guys are bordering on saying that string bean Mostert is a superstar. His supposed dummy runs, sidesteps and blistering speed.......gawd, it's just too much
