New players that stood out

 For the Kings we have SP Marais at 15 and Petersen amongst the backs. Engelbrecht had a very good game at 8.

SP Marais has great feet and looks to attack with ball in hand. Sadly he does look a little light.

Petersen had an awesome debut and looks a real pocket rocket. That hand-off of the big guy was brilliant. I take it he is part of the Baby Bok squad.

I also thought Venter at 9 looked pretty useful.

For the Cheetahs, v/d Walt at 8 had a great all round game, Nkanyane at 1 was solid in the scrums and was good around the park.

Sadie scored a great try which will restore his confidence.

For the Sharks, Reinach was good at 9 and Steph du Toit showed why he should be starting for the Sharks. Jordaan had some moments where it almost happened.

For the Bulls, Morne Mellett had a great game at loosehead and was their best player. Great in the scrums and put in many tackles. His bubbling under selection behind Beast is a justifiable reward. Frik Kirsten replaced the average Werner Kruger and had a good showing in the scrums at tighthead.

Arno Botha proved he should have started as he ended being the best of the Bulls loosies. Frans Venter had some good moments with ball in hand but will want to forget being stepped by Bekker - it happens.

For the Stormers, Kolisi was the best of the loosies and while de Allende never got away as it were, there is just something about this lad when he moves. I like the way he looks to beat the man with skill and does not resort to the direct route. We should see alot more from this guy.

Of the established guard, Spies, Morne, Hougaard, Bekker, Habana, Taute, JP, Frans, Lambie, Beast, Jannie, Coetzee, Mvovo, Strauss, Goosen and Watson were good.

Saffex

You may have an attack - but in essence Iagree with you about all the players - with some reservations about Hougaard.   This time around there was no charge down kicks - but there is still some deiciencies in his game that he needs to be cut out.  Unlike Francois Steyn - who have improved massively already - improvement in the case of De Jongh is in evidence - but much more is really needed

You apparently forgot about Vermeulen that to my mind had a better game than Spies.

well there was a few standout performances but one thing that is blantant like anything else is the form of franna allready so early in the season. just shows once again the massive difference there is in how players responds to game patterns. at the boks he is a kicking mule and only gives first phase ball for the forwards to run of off. while at the sharks he is allowed to played it as he sees it within a open constructive framework. one can see the magic of king carlos in the sharks backline as well. hougaard was not as potent in my view i thought nic groom really showed him up on many a time. but its great to have some rugga on for a change i must admit L)

Carpetmuncher

Welcome back - was asking about you a couple of times because your very good comment was not available. Really - the Strmers messed up big time on Friday and they cannot afford another loss - so I think they would battle like anything on Saturday - will be an interesting match to watch.  

I do not like to see Jantjies and De Jongh in the Stormers team - and if Coetzee select them both - I think the Stormers will be in for a big loss.

thanks mike nice to be back sorry for the late comments i was away with work ext.

yeah well the jury is still out on jantjies and de jongh. jantjies is wearing the old earl rose noddy badge very well it seems. i drove past old earl's fish and chips dinner that he smacked into the other day hahaha.

well the biggest problem is for the stompies is there pattern of play. they cannot attack and can only rely on defence and grinding out a win in a tight game with under the new rules changes will not be as effective i feel. time will tell but they got pinned by a more well rounded bulls team on the night. i feel the sharks boys might be hurting still from the CC final so they wont need any addional motivation on the night.

stormers can not beat the sharks skills or game pattern wise and the stormers will try to spoil the sharks game pattern by off the ball stuff i am quite sure the stomers always seem the keep the underhanded stuff for the boys in black. just hope out boys go out and but them behind early and as the sharks try to chase the game the errors will come.

i am really looking forward tot he center battle. i reckon franna and jordaan are the best combo going around in SA so it might be a mouth watering prospect.

i agree once again mike jantjies blew up like a kombie full of C4 explosives but then again that great news for the oppposing team. they will draft peterson back in but dont expect any fireworks. i reckon it will be another slog and grind game. the stormers set pieces was woefull with is strange to me as they base there 1980's game plan around that but one week is a long time in rugby. we will see how things goes on the night. just hoping for a dynamic open game

Mike maybe you should start opening your eyes, start practising what you preach and leave your prejudices against players like Hougaard for those who buy into your ignorance - it does not work with me.

Your take on Hougaards display is embarrassed by the fact that he was chosen as the second best 9 after round one of the S15, not bad for a player that did not show his hand on attack. His strength was that wonderfully crisp service to Morne, which afforded Morne all the time in the world to execute.

Mike catch a wake up and stop making a fool of yourself

Saffex

Sorry - I differ from you on Hougaard - he was some way off Reinach and will have to improve his cover game, his kicking game and to a lesser extent his passing game before I would rate him.  At least his kicks improve to the extend that he was not charged down like happened frequently in the games last year.

He improved - but is not there yet.  Maybe if he is not passing to Steyn - who stood so deep in the pocket that he may as well have been in the car park - his passing game will be more effective. 

I dont care what you think - as I have said your ignorance is exposed by the fact that Hougaard was chosen as the second best 9 after round one out of all the S15 sides. Makes a real mockery of your take on his display would you not say?

One of your pathetic descriptions on his display was that it was atrocious!!

What is clearly atrocious is your take on rugby players - its laughable

Saffex

Do you need glasses?   Where did I say Hougaard's display was atrocious?  Can remember saying that last year because he was in fact extremely poor in some games -- but as far as I am concerned - I repeatedly said there were Improvements noticeable in his performance on Saturday - but he has still some way to go.   

One suggestion.  Don't say players have class and then not look specifically at their all-round game before you make comments.   One of the sites made Morne Steyn  their top flyhalf selection.  Do you buy that one as well.  I think Steyn is one-dimensional and not a good cmprehensive flyhalf.   If you agree with mme - why cherry picking in respect of Hougaard?  

Mike, I know Hougaard is class, that was proved years ago. All round game has stuff all to do with it. Hougaard's service was the best of all the SA 9's - FACT

He is also by far the best attacking and defensive 9 we have and the fact that he never had any opportunities to attack is not an issue at all. My guess is that given the shit he had to endure last season, he wanted to start this season by just getting the basics right, which started with a nice crisp service to his 10. Reinach was good, but his service was not as sharp as Hougaards and he did nothing of note on attack. Hougaard was better, with that try set up being clever thinking on his part.

Some scribes will choose Morne as their 10 because his goal kicking and positional kicking was good and the rest of his game was solid. I cant knock his performance, but I do know that, that is the best he has to offer, which is not good enough for the Boks unless you want to play a conservative, uncreative 10.

Lambie and Goosen were better and thats why I selected them. Morne was solid.

I will check again, but I am sure I saw you describe Hougaard as atrocious

Saffex

OK - now you gave some real stuff for a change.  Let me tell you that Reinach provided a faster and more accurate service to Lambie than was the case with Hougaard.   You can time the services yourself by looking at the games again.

I believe the problem with Hougaard last year was psychological - his first instinct was to try and attack himself and only if it seems to be impossible would he pass the ball to the flyhalf or kick.   Both actions were consequently too late  - hence the kick charge downs and the inability of the backline to do anything with the balls they receive.   You have been honest enough about thelatter issue when you admitted that he ran a few steps before passing the ball.

Attacks around thefringes should always be an unexpected surprise move - if tried to frequently it become predictable and unworkable.

Where Hougaard did show improvement is that in Saturdays game he did react quicker to get the ball distributed - I gave him credit for that.   Despite everything you say cover to received kicked balls was perfected by Du Preez.   Reinach did the same excellently  on Saturday - Hougaard never did anything like that.   The other slight problem with Hougaard is that his relieving kicks are not at all acceptable.   He in fact is a poor kicker of balls.  Whatever, you say a scrummie must be able to kick accurate relieving and box kicks - Hougaard is just not up to standard  in doing that.    I think he can improve though and am watching out for it.    

Mike dont lie. The best service, ie accurate and speed was by Hougaard, not Reinach. It's a lie because Reinach took a step or two before passing and his pass was not as hard as Hougaards. I was massively impressed with Hougaard's service. Your take is just a lie

You speak complete shit about psychology - Hougaard never looked to attack at all, he just serviced Morne.

His box kicks were good but for one or two

Saffex

Did you read what I said about Hougaard ?   I was refering to what happened last year when I made the remarks I wrote down.   In fact you are just shouting and screaming when you see anything negative being said sbout players you like.

Let me be blunt about the Hougaard - Reinach issue:-

Passing Game

Both players are good 

Kicking game 

Reinach Good - Hougaard  Average

Defence

Both players are good

Cover Defence (against kicks of oppositon)

Reinach  Excellent - Hougaard not in evidence

Let me ask you honestly - if you look at all the four aspects listed - who had the better game on Saturday?

Wrong - passing game - Hougaard was better.

Defence - Hougaard is probably the best defending 9 in the game, which includes cover defence.

Kicking game - its not a strength of Hougaard's but Reinach has not shown that he is any better as a kicker.

Attack - Hougaard is probably the best attacking 9 in the game

On the weekend, neither of the 9's showed their attacking attributes, Hougaard's service was better, Reinach's kicking might have been marginally better. Hougaard set up a try.

Conclusion - Hougaard was better and confirmed by his bubbling under selection as the second best 9 in the whole competition after round. I'll say it again he was selected as the BUBBLING UNDER 9

So if he made the bubbling under selection, how is it that you conclude that Reinach was better - answer this?

Saffex

Youi may not like it - after all you only quote some vague statements of newspaper reports as fact - but the fantasy rugby point scoring systems take into account all the info as to performance on the field of play on an analytical computerised basis - and the points scored by the two players concerned are as follows:-

Foxsport

Reinach     -      8

Hougaard  -       1

Test Rugby 

Reinach    -       100

Hougaard  -         90

I would rather take into account the computer analysis of performances covering all aspects of play - than your whimsical statements as to who played better in games.   My own assessment of the issues raised are confirmed by those point allocations.  In any event your latest statements does refer to general impression of yours about Hougaard - not what  actually happened on the field of play in games in Round 2.         

Well yes, I would rather take into account the view of 5 rugby writers than some or other fantasy league which relies on a computer.

Your own assessment is a load of bullshit as it usually is. Hell Mike we have you telling us that a flyhalf who lies deep is one lacking ball sense - do you know how ignorant and stupid that makes you sound?

Saffex

5 rugby writers see a game - make their own interpretations and then you fall for them hook line and sinker - how gullible can you get.   But then you fall only for those aspects where they favour your viewpoints - otherwise you ignore them or go on the rampage against them.

You deliberately misinterprested what I said - I never said standing deep in the pocket represents lack o ball sense.   I clearly said that it is not helpful - since it results in really poor backline attacking play.   There is no difference about what Morne Srteyn does and what Jantjies does under such circumstances.  

What I did say is that Jantjies have really no ball sense - and as per what Stranski said - his passing game is manufactured - the direct opposite to the game of players with ball sense.       

Mike please dont insult my rugby knowledge with your stupidity. I said Hougaard had a good game and was the best SA 9 before any team of the week was announced. I am just using their conclusion to back my judgement up and to quash your usual and predictable uninformed view.

I dont believe Stransky would be stupid enough to conclude that Jantjies is a manufactured player for he is quite the opposite. A prime example of a manufactured player would be Morne. His strength is kicking, he plays for a franchise that plays the kicking game, he executes the basic well like passing, but plays within his limits for he does not venture out to the art of attacking play. Morne relies on structure and a plan

Jantjies is anything but manufactured, he is a chancer who relies on instinct and little structure or pattern.

Saffex

I never saw any sign of instinctive play in Jantjies that was successful - he is not an instinctive player and Stranski is right and you are wrong.  Anyway as stated previously - next flop this coming Saturday.

 I somehow doubt Stransky said that for that would be a really stupid thing to say. I can understand it coming from you but.......

I dont even think you know what instinctive play is

Saffex

Stranski's comments were part of an interview with ex-players and coaches - quoted on this site   I checked it out and he did say it.

You obviously missed the description of what ball sense entails in which instinctive play was clearly mentioned as well.    Some players you identified as ball sense pklayers turned out to be devoid of ball sense - so lets not repeat that exercise.   Jantjies definitely is not a ball sense player - he does not know instinctively what is the best way to handle play in given circumstances and knows what actions would maximise benefits for his team.   That is why some of his shenninagans completely bamboozle his own teammates and have negative consequences benefitting the opposition rather than his own team.

I dont need a description of what ball sense is and I dont believe Stransky said that for there is no way in hell he could be that stupid. I'd understand it if Hugh Bladen said it but not Joel, but then again I suppose Joel could be thick - I dont really know