Official Stephosi sign up

Those who would drop Mostert and start Stephanie sign up on this string.

Yes, I'd play PSDT at 5 and Mostert at 7, so not dropping Mostert  

Mostert more than qualifies for a place in the starting line up and I also think PSDT does.
Agree with your comment Saffex.
But we all know why that selection will never ever be made.
Sadly.  

Mozart
Have you got nothing else - but writing BS about a specific player?
Repetitiveness Supreme.

Mozart
Have you got nothing else - but writing BS about a specific player?
Repetitiveness Supreme.

Mozart
Have you got nothing else - but writing BS about a specific player?
Repetitiveness Supreme.

 Oh the irony 

 Why drop either, Mostert is playing well enough to keep PSDT on the bench and PSDT is playing like a guy fighting for his starting jersey when he comes on.
If Mostert becomes complacent let him ride splinters till he forces his way back in.
Same for any player, perform or ride bench/get dropped from squad.
Saying that, I know it's a bit more complicated for SA.

Good point Xavi....trouble is if history is prologue Stephanie doesn't maintain the energy when he starts.

 Mozart's normal BS - starting two threads on the same player within 2 days.  The man must be obsessed with Du Toit  and cannot see how he can get him to bed.  What a farce and his handma iden Xavi goes along with it.  

 2 x lol Xavi
Between Eben, Mostert and PSDT lock is sorted. I'd leave it as is for the moment.

It would be interesting to see how Mostert would go at blindside flank. He seems more mobile than PSDT, and also competes at the breakdown. 
PSDT was a disaster when he played blindside flank. So it remains to be seen if Mostert would do better. This would give a good back of the lineout option- with the current 3 midgets. 

It won't work you old poof.....look who has Stephanie as his avatar. And look who has never had a girlfriend in his life....LMAOFY!

Mostert is doing fine at lock...Stephanie was poor in the run up to the Super Rugby playoffs. In fact other than the first Irish test last year where he impacted off the bench his international career is disappointing.

Kak again and why not produce proof sheister.
Shall I provide the stats for you to prove that you are lying again as per normal:-
Pass                       2   Carry                      8Meters gained        38Line Breaks             1Defenders beaten    2Line out steals         1Turnovers conceded 1Tackles made         15Tackles missed         1
So lets also look at the stats of Etzebeth to compare what he did in the game:-
Pass                       0Carry                      6Meters gained         3Line Breaks             0Defenders beaten    1Line out steals         0Turnovers conceded 0Tackles made          6Tackles missed        1
If Du Toit was poor in the Super Rugby Play-offs - what was Etzebeth?  A disaster?  Why don't you just stop being obsessed and stop lying - low life?      



      

Actually both of our locks were ineffective in that game......but for the tournament Stephanie made 77% of his tackles, Mostert made 86% and Etzebeth made 91%. Therein lies your problem. But if you want specific examples....here's the Bools game the week before: .. Stephanie . Pass 6 . Carry 10 . Metres gained 15 . Line breaks 0 . Defenders beaten 2 . Lineout steals 0 . Turnovers conceded 1 . Tackles made 5 . Tackles missed 3 ......... Etzebeth .... Pass 9 . Carry 9 . Metres gained 37 . Line breaks 0 . Defenders beaten 3 . Lineout steals 0 . Turnovers conceded 1 . Tackles made 5 . . Tackles missed 0 ..... Which is why season long stats are key....so here's Stephanie/Etzebeth for the season: . Runs ...130/108 . Metres gained. 621/554 . Metres per run 4.77/5.13 . Tackle success 77%/91% . Pilfers 3/0 . Turnovers conceded 15/6 . Handling errors 12/8 ... So there you have it....Eben makes more metres per run, loses the ball much less often doing that and makes handling errors less often. .. He also tackles at a much higher success rate 91% to a poor 77%. .. The only area where Stephanie leads is in pilfers. Then when you add the additional work Etzebeth does in the mauls and rucks....the quality of his work in contact, it's not even close. Bet you are sorry you started this Tokkie, but this is more for all the other Stephosi who haven't seen the facts. .. And those facts are clear....Stephanie is proactive, this results in a few stand out successes, but it also results in a lot of handling errors, turnovers conceded and missed tackles. And against tough direct opponents those negatives multiply, and cost his team. Three pilfers don't offset fifteen turnovers and twelve handling errors. .

Low Life Liar 
First of all you amended the message posted by adding the words "up to" and deleting the words "in" when you were caught lying out as per normal. 
Don't make up lies as you go along.   Using selective stats is a dead giveaway.   If the stats is used give them in full, like I did above and make sure they are correct - I have a habit of checking things out and catching ou t liars like you. 

 
Mostert was the most effective competitor in the line out. He stole more opposition ball this season than anyone else.

To add to that he has a very high work rate ... is always close to the ball and unlike his fellow jolly jumper Matfield, he has alot more grunt in the tight loose.

PSDT  hasn't received a fair shake. He's as good if not a better option than both Mostert and Etzebeth yet for some reason he's been constantly overlooked.   

It's a tough choice to make.

We have three top locks. The one positive is that Lood is being kept out of the mix and that to me is always a good thing.

Mostert, Du Toit? Du Toit, Mostert. Seems like everybody have very short memories. Why should it be so difficult? Remember the Marltfield/Bakkies/Rossouw combo?

Exactly Ceradyne.
Injuries are gonna happen and when they do Jenkins, RG and Lewies will get their chance to compete for the jersey.

As per normal the duds leave out the real candidate Ruan Botha who was exceptional this year.
We will have to wait and see what Mitchell does with Jenkjins and Snyman - who have been more noted for bugger-ups this year than for positive contributions.   If he can get positivity in their game they could become candidates - but not at present.  Schikerling has in fact been better than those two.    

What has Mostert done wrong? He has been phenomenal for two years. He should start. PSDT is good, but there are definite question marks regarding his tackle accuracy. He must outplay Mostert to get a starting berth, and that is not happening.  

 
You really think so, Xavi?

Snyman deserved a call up awhile back. So did Willemse. Instead they chose the useless Lood over them both.

It's a toughie to choose between a handful of talented players ... but a problem when they leave the talent out for some dumb sh!t who should never have been given a second thought.

The go-to guys are Eben, Mostert, Du Toit and Lood.

I can't see anyone else getting a shot.

Nee man, CC. Loodvoet useless? Why would you, so blatantly, display your rugby ignorance. Haven't you paid attention when everybody "in the know" where convincing us that he was the "God's gift to mankind" of rugby?

 CC
I am afraid that De Jager is a better player than Snyman and Jenkins - who has done nothing of substance so far this year - they rather made silly mistakes leading to possession losses and penalties.   Part of the major problems encountered by the Bulls this year,   Would like to see what Mitchell does with those two - knocking some sense into the two would help.
Besides that Ruan Botha is also a better lock than those two.  

 CC
I am afraid that De Jager is a better player than Snyman and Jenkins - who has done nothing of substance so far this year - they rather made silly mistakes leading to possession losses and penalties.   Part of the major problems encountered by the Bulls this year,   Would like to see what Mitchell does with those two - knocking some sense into the two would help.
Besides that Ruan Botha is also a better lock than those two.  

 CC
I am afraid that De Jager is a better player than Snyman and Jenkins - who has done nothing of substance so far this year - they rather made silly mistakes leading to possession losses and penalties.   Part of the major problems encountered by the Bulls this year,   Would like to see what Mitchell does with those two - knocking some sense into the two would help.
Besides that Ruan Botha is also a better lock than those two.  

Ruan Botha...hahaha....the guy with the 73% tackle success rate. The guy who conceded 11 turnovers and 7 handling errors while making half the metres Etzebeth did? The guy who conceded 10 penalties second only to Ettienne Osthuizen and Thomas who tanks among Sharks players? .. Funny guy Tokkie ... Let me say it again.....Stephanie's stats show he makes no more positive contributions than Mostert and Etzebeth...but he makes many more mistakes than both of them. Those additional handling errors and turnovers are each the equivalent of a great steal by the opposition.....worth 35 metres. He looks good but he hurts his team.

 Nobody believe your manufactured stats - give then in full BSter or accept yopu are a liar of poor repute,   Besides that you should - if you want to use stats make a full account of the stats and you should not lie as often as you do.
Again you refer to tackle stats only  without giving the total number of tackles made.  In the last game Du Toit made 15 tackles missing one - Etzebeth made 6 tackles missing one and you were caught out.  In any event you are too stupid to realise that a player making double the number of tackles may have more misses than a low tackle count tackler.    A tackler making 10 tackles - missing 2 - is worth more in a game than a tackler making 5 tackles missing none.   Even a two-year-old will be able to tell you that - and you are too stupid to realize it.
But then what can one expect from a dolt who claim that a lock is not meant to score tries.
Total ignorance is your  stock in trade insofar as rugby is concerned and one wionders when you will stop the BS you  are writing on the site and start making positive contributions on actual rugby issues.

You cannot p!ss on someone for not using the stats in full, when you, yourself, aren't doing so either. Fact is that even if you include all of the so-called stats that these sites publish, in your argument, you are also not using the stats "in full". That is simply because all of these sites only publish a very small portion of the actual available match data. To get the full range of stats, they would either have to breach their contract agreement with Opta or they would have to pay them vast amounts more in licensing fees than they currntly do.

Whenever I use stats - I use the full stats of ESPN - either for a player over years or for full seasons ie in Super Rugby.   For instance I never use missed tackles without giving the full tackle count and then also the missed tackle ratio.  
In any event the slanted use of stats by Mozart has been challenged constantly virtually every time he use his manufactured stats to prove a point.   He is notorious for using partial stats to discredit players  and for hiding stats by his favourites.   
So blowhard - I use partial; stats and Mozart uses full stats?   We know the story about stats - but one also have to look carefully at matches and stats will routinely confirm your opinion as to performance of individual players.    

Tokkie you incredibly dumb, dribbling fool.....a tackle percentage takes care of the concern that more tackles yield more misses. In case it hasn't penetrated, a tackle % has the number of tackles attempted in the denominator. Seriously are you really that stupid?

 Du Tot is the better lock and expect hi m to take over from Mostert.

In your dreams HasBeen....but do you wan't to sign uo as a Stephosi?

Mozart 
You are a moron and dribbling added,   Your idea of stat usage is peculiarly stupid.   You do not even understand where you are wrong.    The number of tackles made is even more important than the number of tackles attempted.   If  a player made a 100 tackles in a season and missed 20  he is by far a more useful player than one who attempted 40 tacjle4s and missed none.  
If that has not hit home then you are incredibly stupid - but that is always obvious in  your case.  
So you can carry on regardless and even hides it when your heroes missed  55% of attempted tackles and you admired Alberts - as years went by he became a notorious loafer in games - who average about 5 tackles per match and missed 10% of the tackles and dismiss a player who average 14 tackles per match.   and missed 15%  of those.   Without looking at the total number of tackles you are beyond stupid.  
However tackles alone does not represent even 20% of the performance of players - the other components are equally important.   You never refer to other aspects of stats and then try and mislead people with stupidity in interpretation in any event.              

Hey Tokkie, this latest tirade makes it even more relevant for you to revisit THAT 2013 test at Ellispark. Especially since you are now virtually tossing each and every argument that you used at that stage, in respect of defence, out the bac door.

You know Tokkie....you sound like you have the beginnings of dementia......sudden outbursts of anger, awful short term memory.....delusions. Get yourself checked.

 Anger management? Bi-polar disorder? Obsession? Stalker?
Worrying signs
was such a nice fella...

At 38 I already have an awful memory. If I do develop dementia it'll be okay, because I won't remember any of it. 

 Mozart
You are so stupid that you cannot counter logical arguments and now somebody pointing out your total rugby illiteracy is according to you showing signs of dementia.
Sorry to disappoint you - my memory is very good especially on rugby issues and especially when it comes to player performances.   I do not make ridiculous stateme3nts normally coming from you like that -
*   90% of the role of a flyhalf is to kick balls;*   ball protection and recovery is not expected from loosies; and*   scoring of tries is not expected from locks;*   in your view traditional SA Rugby exists and when queried you cannot say what it entails and prove that there is validity for such statement usage.
The best thing for you would be to get away from prejudice against certain players and usage of meaningless clichés.