New Bok team recycles prior mistakes

Mozart

Your BS is boiling over again.   You started that five years ago with Malherbe - because he became a threat to Jannie du Plessis as a prop at a time when Jannie was going backwards fast.   Your first posting was an outright lie as per normal with you and that went on and on for five years now.  When was Malherbe a penalty machine?   I can remember once when  for some stupid reason or other the dud coach Meyer selected  Van der Merwe as the loosehead prop.   He was constantly penalized and you lied about it and blamed Malherbe.   

Duplication

Steph looks like a great number 7 in the making. Du Preez had a good debut at seven last week

No idea how on form Malherbe will be as he has not played much this year .

Kriel has been very good this season has good pace and  keeps improving. 

Mozart

I ask you to stop lying and you immediately started off with lies again,   I did not predict a big loss for the SA team last week - I predicted they would be beaten but the big is the lie.   I never predicted great things for the under 20 WC team.   I said they have a good team going into the WC - but they lost two of their best players and they struggled badly against France as a result.   

My forecast is that the Springboks will win by 8 points in the Superbru comp and that the under 20 team will also beat NZ on Sunday.

So now is you turn - what do you predict will happen?

...notsoclevermike there's no Kiwi ref to save you this week... it's a French one so NH interpretations of the laws ..and two miracle wins last week so you must've just about used up yr miracle quota for the month...

Brycy

Definitely worth a chuckle.   You know by how many points I predicted the French would beat the NZ under 20 team?   I said the difference was to be by 9 points.   You would have made a huge profit on that one.   They had to take their revenge after the AB's beat the Frogs senior team by such a huge margin.

Now lets get it straight - I think that the SA team will beat the POMS again and the AB under 20 forwards are so weak the SA juniors will beat the NZ youngsters as well.   By the way I saw the previous game and worked out the NX loss based om what I saw.      

Anyway I support the AB's against the Frogs so lets hope it works out that NZ beats France and S beats England.  

...notsoclevermike i hope you don';t lose too much money this week ...i can just imagine the French ref being escorted out of the country by armed guards should SA lose ...very poor losers South Africans , they start running smear campaigns and get very ugly...lets hope they win for the sake of the poor French referee...

NZ vs SA in t he U20s . i have'nt seen anything special from the SA U20s team to suggest they could win on Monday...can't see the French losing against England.. That French No8 Joseph is playing for Racing next year - a great talent and good to see the French are producing some good home grown talent.....

OK as to the Under 20's I think the French will definitely win on Sunday/

Nice post Moz

Totally on board with 1 and 2. Kriel. Bloody Kriel! 4 seasons of leeway. Has anybody ever gotten more? Will Am? Did Mapoe?

He single handedly cost us the Welsh game. DDA almost cost us the English game. What happened to the days when our 12 and 13 were some o f the smartest players on the field?

As for 3, it would be nice if we could put just a bit more faith in JL. We forget how young the twins are and to drop JL now might knock his confidence. 

Still, I rate PSDT a bit more highly than you do. Mainly for his abilities in open play.

Plum 

I was disappointed with the fact that Esterhuizen is not on the bench - but for the rest Mozart was BSting again - he has his pet hates and three of those are De Allende, Du Toit  and Malherbe.

I was warning members for a while now that Louw was not scrumming well enough - but most members disagreed with me.   I thought the selection would be Du Toit and Malherbe on the bench.   However, Malherbe has only had a few games in the Supersport Challenge and two bench appearances for the Stormers this year - so he had very little playing time.   Forget about what Mozart came up with - he was caught out lying about Malherbe iro the Wales test about 5 years ago and has been going for Malherbe ever since repeating the same original lies all the time.

As to Du Toit Mozart was at him for years and what he normally carries on about is his standard BS.   If  Du Toit is within 10 meters from a player who scored a try - he would blame Du Toit for not preventing the try.

As to De Allende - the full blame for the Brow n try on Saturday was not his only - Pollard is equally to blame for that try.   The story of the second May try is utter BS invented by Mozart, who lied about what actually happened and there is no way that De Allende could be blmed for the scoring of that try.   

I am not sure why De Allende is blamed for the breakdown in defense - early in the game when most damage was done by the scoring of three early tries.   The one I can understand - but then the poorest defender on the day was Pollard - yet other players are blamed.           

"is utter BS invented by Mozart, who lied about what actually happened and there is no way that De Allende could be blmed for the scoring of that try."

Lol Mike

Then we all lied Mike. You are the only one who saw it differently despite our best efforts to show you the evidence.

The Brown try I lay the blame on both Pollard and De Allende.  The other one by May was a late invention by Mozart - that is the one I called BS.  There was no supporting evidence on the second try by May that caused the blame for the try to be laid at the door of De Allende - but Mozart lied about what happened in that case.   

As stated above -0 I am not happy with the center issue at all - I definitely prefer esterhuizen to Kriel.   

The other issue that would be settled is who would make the line-out calls tomorrow.   I think it would be Du Toit - since Mostert did mess it up in the first test.   He - bar in the case of one line-out - caused the ball to either go to Snyman or Vermeulen and the English was ready for that and made sure that driving mauls were neutralized.     

3 is where the lie started.   There was two players outside of him within three meters from the sideline and no space before them ad before them defenders.   Staring from that point it is all BS - so you can keep your lying going on.  

De Allende dribble kicked the ball - but it touched an Aussie defender going further infield than he intended.    Fact is he could have kept the ball - but a turnover would have happened and possession lost - even if he did pass it to one of the two players outside of him.  He tried something to get past the defenders, which you then totally changed to discredit De Allende.

Happy Liars Day to you - maybe it I nothing new - it is happening at least 52 times a year insofar as you are concerned.   A lie a week is your normal co ntribution on site.  .  

Mike

Any reason why in that situation he would not choose to retain possession?

You know, what with wanting to keep England in their half and see out the game without giving them a way back into it?

We all know how it ended. It was way closer than it should have been, and his decision was the ca use.

Lol Oom Mike.

De Allende dribble kicked the ball - but it touched an Aussie defender 

Good bit of tekkers if he managed to dribble it into another game in another country on another continent.

I didn't see it come off anybody myself but it was still a silly decision and if it had been one of the Steyns that kicked that, you would have had it in for them.

Dofdoos 2 is back - he is even more idiotic than his mate Mozart

Plum 

There is a huge difference happening and what Mozart described initially and what actually happened that I looked again at the incident and found the man was lying about it.   

Plum 

There is a huge difference happening and what Mozart described initially and what actually happened that I looked again at the incident and found the man was lying about it.  

By  the way dofdoos - I am still waiting for your first comment on any rugby issues this year.  

3 is where the lie started.   There was two players outside of him within three meters from the sideline

No. The first receiver next to De Allende was right on the 5m line, thus 5m in from touch, plus it was an overlap as the outside defender rushed in on De Allende, leaving only one defender on the two attackers outside him. In that situation, 5m is plenty of attacking room. England had no one left at the back, only cover defenders coming across from way infield. There was a potential try for the Boks had De Allende let the pass go. The kick was idiotic and unnecessary.

Mike, why do you feel the compulsion to lie when there are clear markers present, like the 5m line in this case? Your 3m claim is a deliberate lie.

Balls - plenty of attacking room in the space of 5 meters with defenders in place.   Fantasy supreme/  

Let's assume that he wanted to kick to touch but it deflected and went into midfield instead.

So of the three options available...

1) Pass and score

2) Hold the ball and go to ground

3) Kick to touch

...which is the only one that certainly gives the ball back to England?

Even if his plan came off Mike, it was still the worst option at that point of the game.

Though if we add a fourth option...

4) Kick to the middle of the field(which is what happened)

...Then at least option 3 is not the worst of the 4 anymore

So in one game, 2 bad decisions from De Allende cost 12 points. Can't remember if both tries were converted. 

Subtract that from the final score and suddenly you realize what a weak link he is.

Dream on about passing resulting in a try  being scored.    If  that was regarded as a try scoring opportunity  would a realistic rugby analyst not have come up with that one/   The .moment the prejudiced  BSter Mozart came up with a theory  the whole story in describing what happened om any rugby situation must always be regarded as a farce.

He would always be supported by his minion Pakie and the most idiotic Ceradunce - who is too  brainless  to even be a minion.     

Mozart

he SA scrum in the first half was a mess compared to what happened in that period in the first test - not so???????????   

You are and remains a habitual liar

Mike,

Malherbe was penalised in his first scrum. He over ex tended and lost his feet.

Liar - you avoided to answer a real question  and come up with your standard  invented BS.

Why is there no response as to the thread dealing with the "decent coach" issue liar? 

Balls - plenty of attacking room in the space of 5 meters with defenders in place.   Fantasy supreme/  

Steph Du Toit looking like the premier numbe r 7 in world rugby. Does a huge amount of HARD work.

Here is the situation as DA has just kicked the ball. Two attackers outside him (highlighted yellow), just one defender (red). Simple overlap, plenty of space to exploit it.

Now the shot pans wide and we see there are no other defenders immediately in the line of attack (yellow). The closest is the one highlighted in red, a good 15m in. This was a golden attacking opportunity.

Pakie

Your pics is very telling - unfortunately your interpretation is prejudiced BS,    

Your pics is very telling - unfortunately your interpretation is prejudiced BS,   

My interpretation:

1. The kick was a poor option. Proof: 30 seconds later England had scored a try, as well as point 2 below.

2. There was a clear overlap to be exploited. Proof: footage.

3. There were no defenders at the back, only cover coming across, thus a golden attacking opportunity. Proof: footage.

Which of these interpretations are BS, and why?