Mozart - As long as Mozart keep on moaning about how

For Mike's benefit - the pre-school crayon ana-lysis of the Hesketh try.
 1. Mafi (red) carries. Kriel (green) approaches. JP is the last defender in line for SA. The two white dots signify two Japanese attackers coming up out of screen to establish an overlap. 

2. Kriel is handed off by Mafi. Critically, JP now cannot drift onto the wide attackers (yellow line), because he has to cover the ball carrier as well (white line). In the meantime, the two Japanese outside attackers are getting more width on the defense.

3. Mafi is still carrying. Japan now have a clear overlap. JP still can't drift wide (yellow line), because he then leaves a gap for Japan attacker 2 (red line). He STILL has to watch Mafi - Kriel's man.

4. By the time Hesketh gets the ball from Mafi, he has way too much width on JP and huge space to run into. The width is there thanks to Mafi being allowed to tie up JP due to the Kriel miss.
The Kriel tackle was the only chance to stop Japan from scoring.

 Kriel is known world wide as a defensive liability. Teams have been exploiting his channel at 13 since Japan exposed him so nicely ... and will continue to do so. 
That leaves me scratching my head as to why anyone would select him there ... again and again.
Are these so called rugby experts honestly that stupid?
Jan Serfontein may not have been all that creative at 13 but the one thing he was is defensively strong. A much better option at 13 if you ask me.

 @CC, you hit the nail on thr head. There was a article by Ronan O'Gara about Jesse Kriel and the role of an outside centre,  and why the Kriel experiment was doomed to fail.   Our friend, Dawie Kabouter, rubbished it and basically said that O'Gara was an empty headed idiot who knows nothing. 

 Yeah ... I remember reading that article you posted. Enjoyed it immensely. 
Made for some interesting reading.
Still ... that doesn't stop the likes of Coetzee putting Kriel back into the 13 jersey. Again and again.
Leaves me dumbfounded. 

 It would have been completely out of the order if Coetzee did NOT put him back in the 13 jersey.

 

Mozart

Just two further questions about the Nonu - De Allende issue. 

*    A player try to run away from you across the field of play - what the hell do you expect the defender to do?  

*    Why are you the only person who "discovered" that issue and keep on harping about it.  No newspaper reports - no criticism by anyone else - but  you keep harping about it.    First you said De Allende  missed the tackle,  which was not the case and when that became clear you kept on in the same line.

I AM NOT HAPPY ABOUT DE ALLENDE’S PERFORMANCE THIS YEAR – BUT HE WAS A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN DE JONGH .   I CLEARLY INDICATES MY UNHAAPPINESS, BUT I AM NOT ABOUT TO LIE ABOUT AN INCIDENT TO JUSTIFY MY PRESENT CRITICISM.   THAT I LEAVE ENTIRELY TO YOU.    

Pakie once again Mike is blown away..and then he lies again about Allende. The truth and the Perv have a very fleeting acquaintance.

Okay so here is what happens with the  Barrett try which lost our World Cup. The ABs get the ball 5 metres out and probe to the right...no dice.
Smith brilliantly senses the space out left and sends it to Carter.....there is complete balance.....Pollard on Carter, Allende on Nonu, JP on Barrett.

Pollard is up immediately on Carter, giving him no space.
But Nonu is lying deep and wide.....ten metres inside the 22/25 metres  from touch. Allende has positioned himself totally incorrectly 2 steps behind Pollard and cramped in close to him....as if for support.
As a result of the poor positioning Nonu has space and takes off diagonally....he runs all the way to 5 metres from the line and 10 metres from touch before offloading to Barret.
In the meantime Allende has not closed, and when he could have, was frozen by a Nonu hesitation step. His man ran fully 20 metres unopposed inside our 22!
Eventually JP was forced to turn inside to stop Nonu who was threatening to go all the way......which is precisely when Nonu popped the ball to Barrett who dived over without beating a tackle.

The fatal mistakes were Allende's positioning and his unwillingness to close on his man and make the tackle.....took us right out of the World Cup.

The Barrett try in pictures:
 1. The green line is the Bok defensive line. De Allende is already, as Smith passes to Carter, inexplicably a good 5m behind the line, jogging up lazily.

2. The X indicates where he should have been had he been correctly aligned. Instead he is in no man's land. Notice that JP is also lining up on the green line. 

3. De Allende must now close the space on Nonu (green line). He doesn't. He keeps drifting backwards and away from Nonu, never closing the distance between them. This allows Nonu ample space to run into. 

4. This goes on until Nonu is in a position to attack the space between JP and De Allende. This stops JP just long enough for Nonu to release Barrett 5m from the line for two steps and dive for the five pointer.

What a load of rubbish! The RWC semifinal wasn't lost when Barrett scored a try in the 51st minute, it was lost 10 minutes later when the Springboks were 2 points behind and got a kickable penalty which was then reversed because of Victor Matfield's dangerous tackle.
We still had a chance to win the game right at the death but a Victor Matfield knock-on destroyed our last hope.

Just for the sake of accuracy, the Boks were 5 points behind when the Matfield incident occurred. 

Oh right, I forgot about the easy 3 points Etzebeth gave away a few minutes before! It was indeed a 5 point gap when Matfield screwed up any chance of us winning. Thanks Ceradunce . . . as if it makes any difference!

Makes a lot of difference actually. It means that even had that penalty not been reversed and it was slotted for a 3 pointer, the Boks still don't win. The whole game changes from there. You now have a kick-off from halfway, not a New Zealand lineout. The later Lambie penalty won't occur. Something else might, but not that penalty.
Funny that no one is blaming Etzebeth. The three points he conceded were directly the winning points for New Zealand. 
The Matfield incident: might have been three points, might not. The kick still had to be made.
All the other stuff though? Those are actually points on the board. The Lood miss on Kaino is points on the board. The De Allende mishap is points on the board. The Etzebeth penalty is points on the board. We know the outcomes of those errors and can point directly to their impact on the scoreboard.
But whatever floats your boat. Everyone has their favorite scapegoats (including me) and they'll flog them to the grave.

Well here's the thing. The incident where the video ref's input turned round the penalty and harshly initiated a penalty against  Matfield occurred with 18 minutes to play. 
That would have made the score 21 to 18.......which is exactly what Lambie's penalty did 7 minutes later. Bringing the score to 21 to 18. Matfield at worst cost the Boks 7 of 18 minutes. 
If there was plenty of time to win when the penalty was reversed....there was still plenty of time to win after the Lambie penalty. No the Matfield reversal never cost the test, so let's put aside that convenient myth.
The fact is the game and 14 points turned on two poor defensive lapses, by Lomp and Allende. Two players who were consistently overrated.
As for Tokkie's argument that I lied about the Allende incident, it implodes as has every assertion he has made about my honesty. The visual evidence kindly provided by Pakie accords in every detail with my description of the incident.

 Mozart - you are talking a load full of BS again.   What you have deduced above is what nobody else in the world deduced and NOBODY ever raised that issue before you started to find fault with it.   Nonu was running towards the side of the field and going to tackle him while he was running towards the side will leave a huge gap and by the way De Allende was not two meters behind Pollard - look again at Pakie's photo.   In your initial statements you said De Allende missed the tackle - which was not true - so why don't you stop talking nonsense otherwise you open yourself up to be accused of being a liar.  I criticize players - but do not do so on imaginary occurrences - I leave that entirely to you.   

 Mozart - you are talking a load full of BS again.   What you have deduced above is what nobody else in the world deduced and NOBODY ever raised that issue before you started to find fault with it.   Nonu was running towards the side of the field and going to tackle him while he was running towards the side will leave a huge gap and by the way De Allende was not two meters behind Pollard - look again at Pakie's photo.   In your initial statements you said De Allende missed the tackle - which was not true - so why don't you stop talking nonsense otherwise you open yourself up to be accused of being a liar.  I criticize players - but do not do so on imaginary occurrences - I leave that entirely to you.   

I tell you what Tokkie you find where I said Allende missed the tackle and I'll give you a banana. You have been totally exposed yet again . Your usual tactics of denial and false attacks won't work.
Eat your crow!

De Allende was not two meters behind Pollard - look again at Pakie's photo.

The photos clearly show Allende even further than two meters behind Pollard - probably close to 5 when Pollard goes up to tackle Carter.

 Stop being a whimpering Mozart idiot.  Do you also blame the "missed tackle" by De Allende on Nonu for the Barrett try? 

So you rather want me to lie and say that De Allende is not at least 2 meters behind Pollard? Open your eyes.
There is no mention of a missed tackle anywhere. The error that De Allende made and what it resulted in is discussed above. You either get it or you don't. I'm not going to pull out the crayons for you again. 

So by the way Mozart, All Blacks had 20 points, not 21. 

LMAO!
So the Matfield penalty reversal didn't have any bearing on the outcome because there was plenty of time to play but the De Allende incident did affect the outcome . . . even though it . . . ummmm . . . happened before the Matfield incident!
I wonder if the pompous old fossil realizes how stupid he sounds?

 What I got is that like Mozart you have been involved in false deductions from what happened.  You two are apparently the world expert on rugby - nobody else blamed De Allende for that try.  What did you want De Allende to do drip mind?   Rush up without regard when Nonu was deep and made a bigger risk by doing so?   You two have one common tendency - you try and discredit players on dubious grounds.   Remember the De Allende drama previously when you blamed him for missing one more tackle than he actually did and reduced the number of tackles made by 3?   That said it all.  

 The X which Pakie drew for you Tokkie shows Allende is  not only too deep, but too far inside. The proof of the pudding was Nonu was able to run a good 20 metres before his progress was blocked. Allende has two defensive issues.....the physical act of tackling.....and as clearly demonstrated in this example, defensive alignment. I very much doubt he will ever solve both these problems.
A reasonable person should be able to take this on Board intellectually....try Tokkie.

Haha, the "De Allende drama" from Brisbane 2015? Where you told everyone that De Allende missed 6 tackles because "he had to get up from making other tackles" and "he attempted tackles no one else would have" (whatever that even means)?
Where I showed with time stamped ana-lysis of every missed tackle that he never had to get up from a single tackle to make another, and that all were straightforward tackles in the channel he was defending at the time?
And more than a year on you still haven't had the balls to admit you just made up (e.g. lied about) the circu- mstances of those tackles to defend the player?
Where I freely admitted to the discrepancy in the number of tackles I counted when I posted them by saying I only skimmed the footage so I might have missed some, and that I'd be happy to accept ESPN's numbers because they're probably more accurate? That's your big tru/mp card?
What a laugh. You're still banging on about that a year later because I made you look like the lying fool you are and you desperately had to find some way to discredit me to divert attention away from one of your worst moments of being exposed on this board.
So by the way, how is the ana-lysis of De Jongh's defensive performance against the All Blacks that you promised me going? I'm still waiting to hear who managed to make easy offloads in his tackles as you claimed the other day. Or was that just another lie about the circu-mstances of events like with De Allende in 2015?

 As for your post Rooilochte it's naive.....
7>3
Needing to score is different from defending a lead.
The Allende botch cost us 7 points and changed our mode to needing to score. A far greater impact than the 7 minute time delay resulting from the Matfield reversal.....not even taking into account the confidence boost a try at that stage gave the ABs.

 Mozart  - You are dim and dim you remain. A penalty turn-around is NOT the loss of three points only - but a turnover of possession in a very favourable position for the opponents.   Matfield murdered that game for the Springboks.  He was absolutely useless.   Aside from that penalty he missed the first line-out throw in as well.   So 2 possession handovers in 25 minutes.   You know you tried this stunt before and it did not work out.   Are you suffering from brain damage resulting in rank stupidity on this site?  

 Well there is a very simple way to examine that thesis.....did NZ score any points after the reversal? And the answer is no, after Matfield came on the park the Boks won the game 3 to 0. The game was lost before that via defensive lapses resulting in tries.
It's embarrassingly easy. Game, set and match.

What a great string this is......fantasy vs reality. We were so close in the WC semi but for two glaring mistakes by Lomp and Allende which gave the ABs 14 points.

 Mozart
Look - I would not bring back a thread in which both you and your sidekick were proven liars and then claim it was a big thread.    Pakie as per normal posted some ph otos leaving out the critical one of the tackle on Nonu - a tackle you initially claimed were never made.
You then posted a video clip that showed what happened and you shot yourself in the foot - so you developed a new story to the effect that De Allende should have rushed up and broke the defensive line to accost Nonu before he started running sideways across the field.   Problem with that BS  was that if he did and a try was scored De Allende would have been blamed as well.
This is as bad as the attack on Goosen when he made a try-saving tackle on Kerevi - an utter load of prejudiced BS invented by Mozart.
In any event for bringing up this thread - it reminded me of the horrible disaster Matfield  actually was in the WC semi-final.   The dolt never realized the full impact of  the penalty turn-around.    Gained nothing - lost potentially three points - lost huge territory - lost ball possession - had to defend again and again.    

Hahahaha total fabrications POofter. Your men, Lomp and Allende managed to make the crucial errors that blew our WC chances. Pakie politely took you apart fact by fact, leaving a quivering mess.

 Mozart
I can never be a quivering mess because I base my observations on facts - not fabrication like you and Pakie do.
Pakie specializes in posting photos leaving out crucial ones and then doing evaluations son his own.  When that clashes with ESPN stats he refused to correct his own errors and then claimed that he made a slight mistake - but still keep on with his story.
You rely on outright fabrications.    The funniest thing in the world is to read how you describe incidents in rugby games - it is so twisted it can best be described as funny peculiar - not funny HAHA.   When it is pointed out that what you describe as factual is a figment of your twisted mind you make personal attacks.
However, the real proven incident in that WC semi - the turnaround penalty caused by the idiotic Matfield - you initially did not admit and when challenged  you tried unsuccessfully to cover it up.   That incident is not a fabrication - like the feeble try-saving tackle of Goosen or the non=tackle of De Allende on Nonu (which you were forced into changing after you yourself posted a video clip proving that you were lying - must say that was one of the worst examples of Mozart stupidity on the sit ever).
However, back to the Matfield story - why did you not admit that he penalty turnaround had serious negative consequences for the Springboks in that game and stop your BS game incident evaluations?
       

It was quite simple Tokkie. The Boks won the period Matfield played 3 to 0. The very dubious penalty given to Matfield, contested by several observers, took away 7 minutes of 19 minutes....we still had a great chance to win. As for the Allende defensive bungle, what did I change?

 That penalty was given for trying to strangle a player with arm around the neck - that was as clear as daylight and the penalty was given whether you like it or not.  That was never argued against by anybody bar you trying to whitewash the incident because it involved Matfield.
Your first statement about why you - and only you and Pakie - blamed De Allende for the Barrett try was that De Allende failed to make a tackle.   Incidentally you two were the only two in the world that  blamed De Allende for the try being scored and - nobody else ever commented on the issue.   If there was a real person to be blamed it was Pietersen who never covered Barrett, but you had to invent an incident so as to blame De Allende who ended up making a perfectly good tackle.
That is why you are never to be relied upon to describe incidents on the field of play.  When you make a statement one has to check carefully what actually happened because what you wrote is normally a total concoction  of suppositions that no logical person would ever make.        

Nope I always said Allende never closed and that he allowed Nonu a long game winning run. Proven by Pakie's images. As for me being the only one that thought the Matfield penalty was harsh, here's what respected Simon Borchardt said: "The TMO should only alert the referee to clear and obvious acts of foul play Both TMOs for the World Cup semi-finals made controversial calls that may have influenced the outcome. In the second half of Saturday's match, Australian George Ayoub alerted referee Jérôme Garcès to a 'neck roll' by Victor Matfield that resulted in a kickable Springbok penalty being reversed. And in the first half of Sunday's match, New Zealander Ben Skeen alerted Wayne Barnes to a 'dangerous' tackle by Tomás Lavanini on Israel Folau. After initially saying that he was inclined to give the Pumas lock ‘the benefit of the doubt’, the referee changed his mind after watching the slow-motion replays and agreed with the TMO that no arms had been used in the tackle. Lavanini was yellow-carded and the Wallabies scored their third try while he was off. Lavanini did, however, use his right arm when attempting to tackle Folau around the legs, so at the most, it should have just been a penalty. Barnes should have stuck with his initial impression of the incident instead of allowing himself to be influenced by the TMO and slow-motion replays, which made the tackle look a lot worse than it actually was. And as for Ayoub, well, he can't seem to get through a game without inserting himself into it. The decision to penalise Matfield was harsh and it cost the Boks three points in a game they would lose by two."

 You are talking total BS about the De Allende issue - and the whitewashing of Matfield in the penalty turn-around is BS as well.   Why don't you ever learn and stop making impossible deductions.   Best would be if you stop falsifying what happened - it leaves a bad taste that you are  an enemy of the truth.  

Nonetheless Simon Borchardt agrees with me....Ayoub got it wrong.

 You somehow foud\nd one person to agree with you - great balls of fire.   As if that change the turn-around penalty to non-existence.    

Pakie as per normal posted some photos leaving out the critical one of the tackle on Nonu - a tackle you initially claimed were never made.
The tackle wasn't critical, nor is a photo of it. It was of no consequence. 
But sure, let's post it. Look, here De Allende makes the tackle. One small problem: Nonu no longer has the ball. It's already on its way to the try scorer. The tackle needed to be made before Nonu committed JP to leave Barrett clear on the outside.


Mike, just stay out of tactical play ana-lyses of the game. You are out of your depth here. Stick to telling us how "deficient" Fransie and Morne and Alberts are instead. Or by all means keep flogging the dead horse about my self-admitted numbers discrepancy with ESPN over a year ago. I know you have nothing else.

 Mike just stay down, doesn't this hurt?