Moz, to check your assessment I would have to go through all the plays you listed and make my own assessment... not worth the time it would take as it will just turn out to be a judgement difference. Quantified bias does not make it real it just looks more scientific.
Mozart
You objective - that is the joke of the century. You never were objective in your life as pertaining to rugby players and I doubt very much whether you k now what the word actually means. Try again.
,...obviously the PhD is in G arbology
Mozart is right in his assessment. This wouldn't be an unusual occurrence.
In 2014, after the England test in November, everyone knew that Lambie and Reinach were what won that test. Mallett concluded that Lambie was simply too good, and that Pollard be demoted. A closer examination proved they were wrong. Very, very wrong. Where did they get the impression? The chip over the top, which was at Willie's command! Fans, commentators and even ex-players and coaches too often make snap judgements without fully examining the game. We're they to have done so, they'd have weighed up the chip with the charge down in our 22, the hospital pass to Serfontein which results in an England penalty, the failed kick into the corner for a lineout when England were a forward down, the blown coverage for a free run at the line which Victor had to stop, the overcooked cross kick into touch when numbers were on out wide, and every tackle which resulted in our defensive line being marched back. We were consistently on the backfoot. These rugby scribes look for an obvious thing, a Solitary incident and build a narrative around it. I've exposed these kinds of things many times.
Another example was Damian in 2015 against Australia. This is an easy one. After the loss to Australia everyone knew that Damian was the best 12 in world rugby. He was creative, powerful and tough. He formed the best centre pairing in the world. Supposedly. Upon closer examination he failed in every tackle attempt aside from a tackle on Giteau. Too bad that Gits was baiting him and slipped an inside ball to AAC for a run deep into our 22. He was bamboozled for an early try as AAC was put into his exposed channel, he was run through for the match winning try, he was beaten another time by Giteau again, who sent through Folau for a free run to the try line. Folau inexplicably fumbled the ball. There were 27 points on offer through Damian, one botched by Folau and another prevented by a very desperate scrambling tackle by a teammate. On attack? He sparked nothing. Every direct carry negated. Ploys to get him in space were quickly snuffed out. He had one run into open space after Pienaar put him away down the blindside which Australia defended poorly. He failed to see the support of JP out wide or Pienaar coming up on the inside. A try which would have at atoned at least a little for all of his errors. It would also have saved the test. The fans never picked up on the missed opportunity, or held him into account. They gushed about the metres run, which was considerable. All in open space before being tackled. Yet, everyone knew he was the best player on the field. Pollard receive criticism for his defence, when in fact he was the better defender by a long way.
As for Steph against the All Blacks? He was nowhere for 40 minutes. Yet he was our best player? Its ridiculous. We can learn much from past appraisal of the player. In 2015 he was said to be the player the Boks should build around for the World Cup. He was nowhere near that level, and performed very poorly when he did play. He was one of the worst performers against Japan, being completely anonymous. I credit him for his improved play in recent times, but he has problems which are showing up time and again. They were present on Saturday again. On defence, he is very heavy footed and is easily beaten. Too often this is around the ruck fringe. Right now I think he is better as a ball carrier than a defender. He does give us options and flexibility. Rassie can put him wider near the touchline. He can also lead a POD and make good decisions with good hands. So, I think he can contribute, but we must be honest, not emotional.
It's provable, quiet easily so, that he was not the best Bok on the field. Were someone to post the clips of these two, it would be rather embarrassing for Lügnerin. I see that these types of discussions have occurred many times in the past, and Lügnerin has always lost. It would be wise for everyone to ponder that with careful consideration.
I never lost one - because I am honest and not twisted by prejudice like you and your fraudulent mates.
Hall Of Fame
17269 posts
Sep 17, 2018, 22:50Moz, to check your assessment I would have to go through all the plays you listed and make my own assessment... not worth the time it would take as it will just turn out to be a judgement difference. Quantified bias does not make it real it just looks more scientific.
Very well said JW.
Ja, quantified bias is indeed what it is...one wonders how one can ever ever accept a view if it is riddled with bias and it does not matter whatever a player does (even when it deserves credit) to appease biasness. It is very shallow and has zero credi bility and integrity. We have seen this with other players of note.
It is very irritating and immature...
Wow. So much criticism from people who hasn't bothered to do any analysis themselves or address the incidents individually. Most of you are going on the impression you got from a live viewing of the game.
Take it from someone who has done one player analyses before: your overall impression of a player's performance during a live viewing is based on two or three standout moments that you can actually recall. Until you dig deeper and follow one player around on a replay of the game, you're only seeing a fraction of the picture.
Example: Mike taking one video clip of Steph running 60m to make a tackle (ignoring completely Marx, a front row forward, who ran 50m+ himself to make first contact) is enough "proof" apparently that Mozart's entire analysis is nonsense.
It's certainly everone's right to take that approach, but just keep in mind that you're feeding off a fair bit of bias of your own when doing that.
Pakie
I have seen a number of your assessments and could not think of one which was not slanted because of prejudice.
I never pasted a video clip on this site ever. So you got it wrong. I am not sure why - but even that quote of yours about Du Toit and Marx is another sideswipe at Du Toit.
However, reading Mozart's analysis is a waste of time. I could check - but he would do the same as he always was and be vastly out about what actually happened.. His first morzoscope I ever read was so distorted it was unbelievable and nothing change since.
By the way your analysis on Louw was not worth reading. You supported a failure by conjuring up what was virtually non-contributions a sure sign of great performance.
Biased people cannot make proper assessments and that is a fact.
Objective criticism should be neutral, uncontaminated, fair and without favouritism...it should always give credit when it's due, whether you like a person or not.
This does not happen here very often.
It's a case of "give a dog a bad name and hang him" ...this disease is rampant here.
I have seen a number of your assessments and could not think of one which was not slanted because of prejudice.
I disagree.
I never pasted a video clip on this site ever.
I didn't say you did. You referenced a video posted on News24 on another thread. Which now makes me wonder if you even watched it or just took the description of the article writer as gospel.
but even that quote of yours about Du Toit and Marx is another sideswipe at Du Toit.
Nope, I have no problem with Du Toit and I've given him nothing but credit for his efforts on Saturday. Giving Marx credit as well is simply being fair. He also ran more than half the field to get there and ended up making the initial tackle.
By the way your analysis on Louw was not worth reading.
Sure. You are under no obligation to find value in anything I say or do.
With regards to Steph? I can cite many instances where he flat out missed a tackle or rushed out of the line and left space that was exploited. The All Blacks were baiting him. A simple draw and pass and a runner was in behind his space. His defence was very patchy. He made some good tackles, one very good run to open the second half. This isn't bias. How could it be, when I praised him for his work in the first test? I still don't believe he is good enough at 7 though. The idea to try Mostert there looks more promising.
It becomes a bore when the critics cannot back up their words, but resort to personal attacks. It makes a person refrain from making more committed contributions to the forum.
No I don't have any problem with constructive criticism but it seems at least to me that some go to great lengths to distort certain players ability and only see a dot on blank page and then it goes on and on...quite frankly one can access the game better in the wider context overall...it's a 15 man game .
Anyway, I'm no government worker, and bureaucrats are the very opposite to my spectrum, Ol' Mike might have been but he did a lot of good for those less fortunate and Brycy...who knows what he did...no one really cares. As for gufflaws...perhaps it would do Ol' Maaikie good every now and again.
I do sometimes see the funny side of human nature...the vulnerability, the predictability and the sheeplike tendancies of group thought...LOL
My imagination runs away from me sometimes...sometimes the groups remind me of groundlings (the rabble in the Elizabethan theatre) ...they were allocated the floor in front of the stage and had tendancies to hurl rotten eggs, tomatoes and profanities at the actors when they did not like or understand them. Bahahahahahaha
Mozart
Chabal clearly stated that biased analysis is worthless and that has nothing to do with government workers at all. That indicates that you despise government workers as you despise certain rugby players,
With that attitude can any verdict by you ever be trusted as objective and fair. It cannot be and never was, May I remind you how you used to start up to two threads per week on Du Toit and De Allende whom your criticized endlessly and never even once made a favourable comment from you for years now. Even if they made a positive contribution those were criticized by you.
The same type of BS was evident when years ago you used to start threads on a weekly basis of Goosen being injured - when there was in fact no evidence of any injuries at all.
Then there has been hysterical attacks on Erasmus started years ago and a repeat of comments with no real bearing on what happened from a legal perspective in respect of his career.
I can on the other hand list strings of comments of a negative nature about your favourite players where you tried to protect real poor play. Frans Steyn and Morne Steyn were examples of that. Matfield could foul up and then a serious effort on your part to cover up was hilarious - eg your screams about how unfair the turnaround penalty was and the claim that it did not have any negative effects for the Springboks. A recent case where Louw fouled up and made a similar mistake to that made by Du Toit years ago and endlessly criticized by you - despite all evidence there was a denial of similarity and a determined effort to cover up the mistake of Louw by you.
I can go on endlessly listing how you behave on site - how you distort to the point of lying what actually happened and how you create real myths which according to you have not even been recognized by world rugby analysts and how you and your confreres was so excellent that you could,
Arrogance, untrustworthiness and distortion have been your stock in trade for years - so why should one believe you?
Mozart ran for cover and his sidekick dreamed up a post in which I criticized Matfield after he was lauded after game involving what could only be considered as an Argentine "B" team. I criticized where criticism is warranted and not when criticism is created through deception.
Mozart ran for cover and his sidekick dreamed up a post in which I criticized Matfield after he was lauded after game involving what could only be considered as an Argentine "B" team. I criticized where criticism is warranted and not when criticism is created through deception.
Pathetic, can't really say anything else just pathetic.
Well to be quite honest...it's a double-edged sword...I try to be pleasant with both of you but it's an impossible task because you both are inclined to shift to your groupies in a sense. It just is unpleasant and yes pathetic. All of us are so different in many, many ways and yet at times we do strike a note of common ground and that can actually be quite pleasant but then an issue is raised and it seems that neither can be civil and nobody is absolutely quite spot right and it shouldn't be expected.
Some contribute in small and focussed detail others prefer the wider vision...I'd noticed this life in every possible area of life...it's just the way we all are different...nothing really wrong with that and the other thing we never listen properly to what the other is saying and just spout off uncontrolably... others try to humour a situation but this is invariably taken seriously and they get easily offended...touchy fellas with perhap s problems with fragile egos and lack of tuition in the finer and polite old-fashioned way of life.
I reckon we should all try to see the good points in each other and not the bad...just in the same way we should see in the players of sport. Afterall they all must be very good, in truth far better than any of us have ever been.
No I'm not a goody 2 shoes but simply find life more pleasant when we are reasonable and polite to one another. Out there in world today there is a cess pool of cynical, souless and loveless society that is drifting further and further away...a clinical, programmed world that lacks humaness, kindness and genuine love. I don't like it and it's our enemy.
Please don't insult the hard working Mostert who doesn't shun the physical stuff -he has at least three as much grunt as wee matfiled 103 kg. Papest "lock" ever!
Du Toit is a number 7 great in the making! Don't waste him at lock of whom we have plenty.
Moz, I actually like the "formula" you, erm..., formulated, but rugby is not math, and sometimes the team is more than the sum of the players/members.
I did not have the time to watch the match again, so I don't know how much better or worse PSDT was than Mosterdt. ATM I'm just elated at the win...and from my first impression, all the players played out of their skins.
What I do know however, is that you have displayed a dislike in some of the players and/or the hype surrounding some players. PSDT is one of them. You might be right in your assessment, or you might be wrong, but these players that you don't like are the best we have ATM. Meyer, Coetzee and Rassie can't all be fools.
What I do like about your stance is that you question the status quo and don't always buy into what the media tries to feed the public.
The same argument holds for Maaik too. His got his pet hates too. With some I agree, others not so much so....I've got my pet hates and blinkers too. I try to be objective but that's an impossibility for all but a robot.
Mozart
Don't try and sidetrack what I wrote about your history on site as indicated above. You can carry on as of it is not the truth - but paint an ugly picture of your conduct on site.
My last insult of you followed about another pervert attack on me.
In any event you have the support of AO, Ceradunce and Pakie in this case - the rest has seen through what you are doing and that must really be a disappointment for you.
By the way I recently saw the TV series on Pride and Prejudice. I like the characters and =
* you are a carbon copy of Mrs Bennett;
* Ceradunce is as silly and poor as Mary Bennett;
* Pakie is a definite silly and ignorant one like Kitty Bennett; and
* AD is the equivalent of Lydia Bennett.
Mr Bennett at one stage called them the most stupid people in Britain. So I will stick with that one.
PSDT 5 runs 18m gained and 2 defenders beaten
Case closed
Then of course you can rewind a week to the Australia game where PSDT made 10 runs for 7 meters beating nobody. Even Eben managed only 3 runs for 1m against the All Blacks and 8 runs for 1m against Aus. Again, stats tell us little.
But granted, Mostert is not an imposing physical presence as a ball carrier. He brings a pile of value with his workrate and accuracy though. Would still like to see him have a go at 7.
Moz, that was an epic match and I'll surely watch it again. I like both Mosterdt and PSDT as players, so I'll try and keep an open mind and see if Mosterdt was really almost twice as good as PSDT.
From first impression that seems unlikely, but your observations have had me change my opinion in the past, so I'll give it a go and let you know.
