Not even a close final...great play Sharks

From the very outset where the Sharks put pressure on the WP kickoff return, the Sharks were the dominant team. Stronger counter rucking, better tactical kicking, and a much more organized lineout won this game.

For the Sharks Marais, Ludik, Lambie (in general play) McLeod, Stephanie and Alberts were huge. On the day Steph got the better of Etzebeth who was neutered by remarkably poor lineout tactics and throwing.

For WP Aplon was terrific without ever quite getting the final bit of space he needed. Our centre combination never worked....and Schreuder was a disaster. I have never seen what the obsession is with this player. In the pack Kitshoff was perhaps the only standout. Vermeulen I thought had a very disappointing outing.

Tactically the Sharks with short kicks found open space behind WPs flat defence and WP only started to run.....really their only option in the light of Sharks' forward dominance....far too late. One could sense this thing ebbing away fairly early . Massively disappointing but indisputable.

Mozart

One question - the commentator remarked that he saw Alberts in the team the first time in the second half - when he collected the ball from a kick- in and carried it circa 5 meters.  In the first half he did squat.  In the second half he had 4 ball carries in total - only one really can be described as good - but one also resulted in a penalty against the Sharks.  He made a minimal number of tackles.  That to my mind is not a huge game.   One significant ball carry per game and very little else is average to poor.   I am always amazed at what you call hug performances - this was just one of those.

The pain must be over-whelming to see how much better Lambuie is at flyhalf after writing him off throughout this year  and promoting the useless Morne.   Also about your constant running down of Du Toit.   Terrible to be unable to assess players properly - you really do not know how that is done.   

Mozart

Sorry - but you lie about Du Toit as well.   The first game he played in Super 15 this year - he came from the bench and had a top performance.  You carried on about him being hyperactive and said that he would not last a whole game.  The next game he was as good for the full game and you went quiet.   He did have some average e games afterwards - but that was probably while he was playing with an injury.

Another outright lie is that I defended Plumtree.   There were all kind of wild statements made by some people that Plumtree played Du Toit despite the injury - and you were stupid enough to fall for it.  Players have to be examined by the team doctor and past fit to play.  No medical practitioner would allow a p[layer to play if he is aware of an injury.   Some players tend to hide injuries and that is most likely what happened here.   There is no proof that Plumtree knew about the injury and forced Du Toit to play.

The other outright falsehood is that I defended Plumtree insofar as his dismissa l is concerned.  I said that the way in which Smit handled it was wrong - not that the ultimate action was wrong.   There is a huge difference in that.

Distortions won't help and it is really bad to see how you distort things. 

Mozart

I should not need to explain issues AGAIN.   I wrote clearly that most of Plumtree's problems stemmed from injuries to players and under-performance of key players like Steyn.  That was a fair comment.  A coach who coached his team last year to reach the final of Super 15 could not be all that bad and there need to be reasons for the problems.  If that is regarded by you as an apologist -- then so be it, because it is a fair assessment of the situation.

However, I did not say he should not be terminated - it is normal for such termination if a sports team does not perform - I wrote about the methods used by Smit in dealing with the termination.