FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Mozart - a Serious Question

Mozart - a Serious Question

Started by clevermike26 REPLIES297 VIEWS· 05 Aug 2014, 08:43
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 08:43
#1
05 Aug 2014, 08:43#1

Let me quote from Meyer's latest statement:-


"One area I believe we have to improve on in the Rugby Championship is the scrums," he said of a facet of the game in which the Boks were rated as No.1 in the world in 2013.

"I wasn't happy at all with the scrums in the June Tests," he said, adding: "Worldwide there has been a big trend the scrums and I am very worried about this aspect."


So Meyer was not happy with th scrumming in the June tests and one has to do n analysis as to why - what happened  to cayuse problems.   Lets face up to the  situation and analyzed it to see where the problem originated from,.


The tight  5 situation in 2013

 

The starting line-up basically were the following:-


Beast, Bismarck, Jannie (2 games Malherbe)

Etzebeth, Kuger/Flippie van der Merwe


The Tight 5 situation in June


Beast, Bismarck, Jannie (1 game Steeenkamp)

Bakkies Botha, Victor Matfield (1 game Flippie - in another Lood de Jager)


Analysis


Last year  when we were according to Meyer the best scrunmmaging side in World rugby - the props and hooker was in the main the same as the players involved in the June tests.


The locks were where a major change was in eivdence.   Matfield and Bakkies Botha came in  and Flippie was used in one game and De Jager in another.


Scrumming in respect of the World game  was a disaster and disgrace.   It was slightly better in the first Welsh test and even improved in the second  Welsh test and Scottish test.


In the  World game we had the same props and hooker as virtually throughout 2013 with only Botha and Matfield changed.   So did our front row players went back so drastically from what they were in 2013 to June 2014?   I cannot accept that it was match overplay - the front row played in as many matches in 2013 as they played in 2014 - so that cannot be the over-riding scenario.   


The team changes basically were in the lock position where Bakkies and Matfield came on Board.   Does that not raise the concern that they were the problem in the deterioration of the scrumming scenario?  W ill this problem - as identified by Meyer - be solved by changing the locks in the team?        

CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
05 Aug 2014, 12:21
#2
05 Aug 2014, 12:21#2
One major diffirence. Last year Jannie and Beast were not played into the ground by Jake White.
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
05 Aug 2014, 12:47
#3
05 Aug 2014, 12:47#3
 
Hey Mike ... that's copyright ...

No need to thank me for providing that material a few months back.


BL
bluebok
Pro3,977 posts
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
05 Aug 2014, 12:51
#4
05 Aug 2014, 12:51#4
Good point Mike. Credit to both Matfield and Bakkies, they were brilliant, but they are not anymore. I am 35 and I don't care what anyone says, the mind may be willing, but the body just is not the same anymore. Bakkies is my age and Matfield is two odd years older than me, and there is just no way they can physically perform at their peak anymore. Having said that, if we had nobody to take their place I would say let them play, but we do have players to take their place. Who do we leave out for them? Etzebeth, De Jager, PS DuToit (Not sure if he is injured). When you have young world class locks lining up to play, why play Matfield and Bakkies that are without a doubt past their best?
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
05 Aug 2014, 13:01
#5
05 Aug 2014, 13:01#5
 
Yeah ... and one of my favourites ... Paul Willemse ... lost to South Africa.

Infuriating!!




CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 13:11
#6
05 Aug 2014, 13:11#6
 Ceradunce
How many games did Jannie and Beats play  in Super 15 last year compared to this year?  Stop being stupid - dunce.   Your escape mechanism does not work .   
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
05 Aug 2014, 18:12
#7
05 Aug 2014, 18:12#7
 You do the math, poepol. I said that they were not played into the ground last year and you do not agree. Prove that I am wrong.
GT
Gonzo the Great
Club Pro560 posts
GT
Gonzo the GreatClub Pro560 posts
05 Aug 2014, 18:16
#8
05 Aug 2014, 18:16#8
 Jannie hasnt been in great form for the last half of the super xv. beast is always a hit or miss player, not very consistent.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 18:29
#9
05 Aug 2014, 18:29#9
Ceradunce 
 The Sharks played 16 games last year - and 18 this year.   No huge difference.  Neither Beast nor Jannie was out because of injuries for any length of time - so the so-called playing into the ground - is as per normal with - utter bullshit.    
You still would not accept that Matfield and Botha were the only real changes - and that they weakened the scrumming - what a stupid idiot.   
GT
Gonzo the Great
Club Pro560 posts
GT
Gonzo the GreatClub Pro560 posts
05 Aug 2014, 18:33
#10
05 Aug 2014, 18:33#10
 cummulative fatigue mikey, you cant compare the amount they played last year with the amount last year plus this year. Its just not the same.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
05 Aug 2014, 18:48
#11
05 Aug 2014, 18:48#11
 Minutes played ou voorvel, minutes played.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 18:54
#12
05 Aug 2014, 18:54#12
Veradunce
 Most of the time the Props were replaced at roundabout minute 60 and that is a fact as well.   But minutes played is really not the issue - your "strond:  that they were playing into the ground and hence the poor scrumming performance is what is.   
Meantime - the silence of the lambs about the poor support of Matfield and Bakkies.   Any escape mechanism will do - not so?   The main problem remains the shit-poor scrumming  support of Bakkies and Slapgat.   
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 18:54
#13
05 Aug 2014, 18:54#13
Veradunce
 Most of the time the Props were replaced at roundabout minute 60 and that is a fact as well.   But minutes played is really not the issue - your "strond:  that they were playing into the ground and hence the poor scrumming performance is what is.   
Meantime - the silence of the lambs about the poor support of Matfield and Bakkies.   Any escape mechanism will do - not so?   The main problem remains the shit-poor scrumming  support of Bakkies and Slapgat.   
GT
Gonzo the Great
Club Pro560 posts
GT
Gonzo the GreatClub Pro560 posts
05 Aug 2014, 20:47
#14
05 Aug 2014, 20:47#14
 Bakkies is now a scrumming weakness? bwahahahahaha! Now ive heard it all, no wait, itll say something else. god knows you always have to have the last word.
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
05 Aug 2014, 20:52
#15
05 Aug 2014, 20:52#15
 Lol
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 21:59
#16
05 Aug 2014, 21:59#16
 Bonzo
Bakkies is not what he used to be six years ago and even 6 years ago.  There is very little signs of top physicality left in him.  Too old for the game - I am afraid.  
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
05 Aug 2014, 22:35
#17
05 Aug 2014, 22:35#17
 Ou Maaikie, you should stop digging, ou Beesblaas.

" Most of the time the Props were replaced at roundabout minute 60 and that is a fact as well.   But minutes played is really not the issue - your "strond:  that they were playing into the ground and hence the poor scrumming performance is what is. "

You are the only idiot around who do not believe that this was the case. That was one of the talking points by many in the media over the last month or two, but dream on, swaer, dream on. The truth, it seems to me, is that you are either too lazy to work it out or you do not have the know-how.


"Meantime - the silence of the lambs about the poor support of Matfield and Bakkies.   Any escape mechanism will do - not so?   The main problem remains the shit-poor scrumming  support of Bakkies and Slapgat."

You, of all people, are the last one to think about trying to explain that one. Let's have a look at your logic in this regard.

In the one game you tried to convince us that Beast's scrumming (with Victor behind him) improved when Bakkies (who was scrumming behind Jannie) was replaced. Really?

Then, in another game, you were trying to convince us that Jannie battled in the scrums because of Victor, who was scrumming behind Gurthro in that instance.

Neeeee boet. You should rather give the idea, of judging the locks' scrumming, a miss.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 22:56
#18
05 Aug 2014, 22:56#18
 How do you account for the fact that the replacement of the locks went hand in hand with the decline in scrumming efficiency.   There is no way that it did not have an impact on the scrumming performances of the props.  
In one game it was obvious that the props and Bismarck had a serious discussion with both Matfield and Botha and it was also obvious that it relates to inadequate support by the locks in scrums.
De Billies - the scrum coach was seeing looking as mad - it was unbelievable.    
The problem was also clear in the case of the Bulls scrumming.  Since Matfield returned the Bulls scrums showed serious signs of decline and that is also a fact. 
Bakkies porblem is his level of physicality is definitely very much lower than it was in 2009 - thta is clear from his performance data in the tests he played in recently.   The idea that a player of 37 years old weighing 106 kgs can still supply adequate support in scrums and in the Tight phases of the game - is laughable 
The problem is that Matfield is dominated in contact - that is abundently clear if you watch matches he plays in.   
I do not think we can beat the Aussies and the AB's with a weakened Tight 5 combination and Matfield does weaken the Tight 5 as a rsult of physical deficiency.    


CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Aug 2014, 22:56
#19
05 Aug 2014, 22:56#19
 How do you account for the fact that the replacement of the locks went hand in hand with the decline in scrumming efficiency.   There is no way that it did not have an impact on the scrumming performances of the props.  
In one game it was obvious that the props and Bismarck had a serious discussion with both Matfield and Botha and it was also obvious that it relates to inadequate support by the locks in scrums.
De Villies - the scrum coach - was seeing looking as mad - it was unbelievable.    
The problem was also clear in the case of the Bulls scrumming.  Since Matfield returned the Bulls scrums showed serious signs of decline and that is also a fact. 
Bakkies porblem is his level of physicality is definitely very much lower than it was in 2009 - that is clear from his performance data in the tests he played in recently.   The idea that a player of 37 years old weighing 106 kgs can still supply adequate support in scrums and in the Tight phases of the game - is laughable 
The problem is that Matfield is dominated in contact - that is abundantly clear if you watch matches he plays in.   
I do not think we can beat the Aussies and the AB's with a weakened Tight 5 combination and Matfield does weaken the Tight 5 as a re sult of physical deficiency.    


CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
05 Aug 2014, 23:02
#20
05 Aug 2014, 23:02#20
There is no way that anybody can take anything you say about locks in scrums seriously. No way.
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
05 Aug 2014, 23:13
#21
05 Aug 2014, 23:13#21
Quite correct Mike wee victor at 106 kg and 37 years old could never be a power scrummager even if Cerudunce windpomp imagines he is. It's called delusional behaviour.
Personally I dont like bracketing the great Bakkies Botha with wee victor. Bakkies I believe can still play a good 60 minutes.

DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
06 Aug 2014, 00:41
#22
06 Aug 2014, 00:41#22
 Vlag, you need to be able to recognise the facts amongst the fiction (bullshit) Difficult I know.
CE
Ceradyne
Pro9,374 posts
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
06 Aug 2014, 00:58
#23
06 Aug 2014, 00:58#23
Oh, I can do that, Draad. It is just a few clowns around here who find it a bit difficult. If it wasn't for the ability to recognise the fact amongst the fiction, I would have been wondering WTF I cannot find Morne Steyn's name on the squad list of Paris St Germaine.
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Aug 2014, 03:29
#24
06 Aug 2014, 03:29#24
 Well let's be logical. Adam Jones survived the scrumming test against the Boks in Cardiff...but he struggled greatly in South Africa. Two things changed to presumably effect Jones...Matfield came in at lock and Gurthro came in at prop. I'm easy pick any one or both as the reason the Boks dominated at scrum time.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Aug 2014, 03:47
#25
06 Aug 2014, 03:47#25
 Mozart
You may think they dominated - Meyer definitely does not think so.   Jones is getting older as well - he is even older than Steenkamp.   Jones was replaced in the second test and so was Steenkamp.  
The scrums in the World team match was chaotic - in the Welsh tests basically stable - not at all acceptable - so why is Meyer wrong and you right in this case?   Who is  talking tripe this time around?
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Aug 2014, 05:13
#26
06 Aug 2014, 05:13#26
 I don't know which test HM is referring to, but presumably not the first Welsh test where we dominated the scrums.  Get back to me if you have more info, meantime I'll think about whether Matfield or Gurthro was the source of the dominance.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Aug 2014, 08:32
#27
06 Aug 2014, 08:32#27
 Balls in capital letters -  in other words Meyer does not see things in perspective - because Mozart wishes it to be otherwise.   What dominance are you talking of - there was none.   So dear Mozart thinks that our Tight 4 will dominate the opposition with 3 Tight 5 players and one passenger?   The first deficiency is scrumming - the nmext one mauls,  
What a fool you are - if there is one player that will dent our chances in the RC it is Slapg at.      
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news