Moz's extra strong, live Pom match notes

PS...If I was captain I would have told PSDT to call the LO on Eben after the second deep throw failure, if not after the first.

Mozart

There is no way that the short call maul was successful at all.  It died as such call mauls inevitably  do.   Never work - so your story about rolling mauls is real nonsense since you are totally clueless about that aspect of the game.

But anyway  it is no use to discuss the maul issue with you since you never identified it as a problem and when I started evaluating what happened and should be done to get the problem corrected - you came up with total nonsense in response.   All because you either did not understand there is a problem and because solving it would cut into your player preference, it caused a lot of tripe postings not worth the reading.      

AO

You are given clear answers and then pretend that there is a theory why they are not clear.   I told Mozart ten times over what was wrong and it went straight over your ehad as per normal.  

Mike...

Tell me if this is wrong.

A short/middle take to maul transition forces a decision from the defending team.

Push to touch and risk not having enough power behind the ball to repel the attack.

Defend straight ahead and lose the advantage of pushing the maul to touch?

Just a question ;)

Mozart a man alone does not represent a maul.

Listen your theory about throwing the ball at Etzebeth and trying to engineer rolling mauls from there failed twice on Saturday and minimal progress was made in the process.

If you for a change start to use your brain instead of your bum  = you may realize writing tripe on site really does not pay.

Care to revise your false description that actually happened at minute 10:30.   Your present description is totally false.  

Listen I did not change the subject at all.   I just pointed out a factual situation which happened on Saturday - which you try to obscure.   In  any event you tried to write something about  ball two balls  thrown at Etzebeth and mauls formed.   The mauls were not successful and not even three meters were gained in the process in the case of each of the mauls,  Fact is the above  proves that the system does not work when throws go to the front of the line-out.  

That was the topic - I did not change it at all.  I have not lost any argument since I outlined a real problem and you did not understand why there is a problem and what should be done to solve it.          

Balls - a total misrepresentation as to what happened at 10:30 and you say it is correct while it is just a plain falsehood.

I am not going to give the maul info - but both throws were not followed by a successful maul - the one you mentioned was disorganized and the meter gain was minimal - same with the other one.  The ball was dropped by Kolisi because of the disorganized maul effort,

If you ever watch games - also the AB test in Pretoria - the balls went to the middle or behind in those line-outs before the maul progressed.   But you would not know about it since it never entered your head to even look at the games from that perspective. 

Watching the overthrows by Marx - it was clear that he made the mess and did not throw in the balls accurately - but you are the only person who blames Du Toit for it,  What a total farce you are making of any rugby discussion.   

Hall Of Fame

25613 posts

So there you have a FULL ASSESSMENT. The Boks were playing a disrupted team and as in Pretoria failed to score when they were on top. And then when England came back at them, they faded in the last 15 minutes.

England were on top ball in hand much earlier than the last 15 minutes! 

I take exception to the nuances in Mozart's descriptions and the blame he chooses  to allot to players - sometimes totally without reason,

Etzebeth lost possession of the ball in a tackle situation - there is a mention in Mozart' s description - nothing negative is mentioned.    In the case of De Jager the same happened and he gets attacked by Mozart.

Here is what Mozart calls objective assessment:-

*    Minute 29 ...Etzebeth tries to barge through and loses the ball. 

*     Minute 79.02.....The Boks are almost on the Poms 5 metre line, Lomp is stripped by Farrell. There's your match. Boks driven back to the 10 metre line.

Same circumstances - different BS description by Mozart.

He does not mind lying as well and I challenged  him to correct what happened at minute 10:30 and he refused to do so.   Lets look at  the incident.   

 Minute 10.30 Aimless Allende kick ahead easily recovered then lost by May. 

First of all the kick was not aimless - secondly May never recovered the ball.  May  touched the ball but never recovered it at all.   Fact is the ball was recovered by the Springboks and the attack continued.   The whole description was totally falsified.

When I read that type of BS I lose interest as to what follows.     

I had the paperback, but never finished more than half the book...too dark and depressing for my taste!..had the same problem with the movies...love the genre, but LOTR just doesn't work for me. 

Mervin Peake did it better. Fantastic writing style. 

Mozart

Easy to use diversion.  I wrote clearly that you lied about what happened at minute 10:30 in your garbage above and - you ran for cover.  Why not apologize for the lie?

Notice that Damian was put into space outside the edge of the defence. Something I was criticised for saying. 

Mozart

Here is the BS you wrote:-

Minute 10.30 Aimless Allende kick ahead easily recovered then lost by May. 

First of all the outcome of what happened when a kick has been made determines whether the kick is an aimless.  If the kicking team recovered the ball after a kick it can NEVER be an aimless kick.  Only a total rugby ignorant would make a idiotic statement that it was aimless.

Secondly then followed the lie - May did NOT recover the ball at all - he tried to recover it and in the process he touched the ball - after which the Springboks recovered the ball.

Why is it impossible for you to ever write what actually happened during games or are you too twisted for that.

Mozart 

Stop lying - what I wrote was 100% correct - wat you wrote was totally twisted and a lie to boot. 

Have your eyes got twisted too .   

I dare you to put that clip on the site and show us whether you or I were correct.  But you won't - because you will be caught out lying again.

This is a perfect demonstration of Mike's very thin grasp on reality. Damian poorly executes a grubber which May handles, but then fumbles. Where is the lie? Here we have Mike's bias twisting the truth to defend a player he adores. Simples. 

If you watch again, it was England's eightman who closed Damian down. If Kriel was in that position, he'd have broken past E8 and challenged May to make a decision: him on the inside or Nkosi on the outside. 2v1. Is Damian too slow? It doesn't really matter, because he naturally slows down as he approaches a defender or when a defender approaches him.

So, we have an effective play, to get outside the edge of the defence, but Rassie is putting the wrong man in the key position. What is with his bizarre infatuation with Damian? This is also how one determines if we have  gameplan problem or personnel problem, as I have pointed out numerous times when discussing Meyer. What opportunities did the players have? How did they respond to those opportunities? We had a personnel problem at 12 wasting opportunities the gamepl an provided. A back against a forward. New Zealand eat those up, especially with even a little space to work with, even cramped along the touchline. 

Dimness 

Read what Mozart wrote.   That was a total falsified description.  Or are you too dim to realize what the meaning of the word "recover" is - May never recovered or fumbled the ball.   He tried to get back and managed to touch the ball - that could never be a "fumble"

Your fumble is also BS and tell me how a ball recovered by the Springboks after a dribble kick taking the game deep into the opposition 22 can  be described as an "aimless kick" .

You have been asked to give us reasons for your deluded scribblings and you ducked out,   You talk a lot of KAK on site and when asked for examples to support your sometimes totally wild claims you run off or come up with BS.   Get real.  

Once again we have the mule backed into a corner. Watch your hands people. 

Mike

That ball sat up for May like a ripe peach. Nothing special happened. It sat up gently in front of him, he got both hands to it and then lost it.

Pause at 00:12 and play to 00:13.

May was in a position to very easily recover that ball, meaning it was an aimless kick and it was only luck, or his own mistake, or in tennis terms...an unforced error, that caused us to get possession back.

This description, unless your splitting hairs, is pretty apt...

Minute 10.30 Aimless Allende kick ahead easily recovered then lost by May.

If you wanted to be difficult you could say...

Minute 10:30 Aimless Allende kick ahead easily recoverable but lost by May.

What's the difference? The point is that it was an aimless kick.

Stupid as per normal.   When he cannot admit that he and Mozart buggered up - he puts a mule on site - showing he has mental deficiency. LMAO