Murley into the corner for Quins after a partially charged chip from Marcus deflects back into Quins hands. They look a handy side.
Murley into the corner for Quins after a partially charged chip from Marcus deflects back into Quins hands. They look a handy side.
Marcus with a lovely little wide chip gets Quins rumbling into Stormers territory but they knock one of the offloads.
Beautiful inside ball sends Dombrandt through for the score. Some superb rugby from Quins. 19-0
Same sh!t as yesterday...Stormers behiend 19-0 after 16 minutes...howzit Pakie, you also stuffing up your Sunday afternoon?
Howzit Draad, so hot there's not much else to do. Will water the garden later when the sun has relaxed a bit. See large parts of the country are toasty, from Oudtshoorn to Uitenhage and you said down in the Cape as well.
Marcus Smith. looks so much better than Ford did yesterday
Charge down and Quins score again after they almost botched it on the line. 26-0
Howzit Moz.
Just tuned in.
Looks like a second string side on the park?
Charge down try!
Howzit Beeno. Ja mostly the dirt trackers. Quins with another scorcher. Damn they're playing fine rugby out there, Stormers cluelessness besides. 33-0
31-0 lol
Big sign for a bar near the stand….I’d head there if I was a Stormers supporter.
Stormers getting massacred!
Green doing better than just OK.
In the playoffs the Packers were 21 to 3 ahead of the mighty Bears yesterday, but were crushed by a brilliant second half…somehow I don’t think the Stormers have 33 points in them
Quins are so all over this at the moment it will take a dramatic implosion to let the Stormers back in.
That was one skew scrum feed.
Stormers just drifting lamely into touch on attack. Willemse unlucky though, had it kicked before he had a foot in touch. HT, things settled down a bit in the last 10 minutes.
33 is a steep slope for the Stormers second stringers...
Not much on the bench either. First string getting a rest.
Willemse struggling without space
Willemse beaten on the outside with ease….bring back DuD.
Willemse again beaten.
Willemse misses another tackle….clearly not interested today
These commentators can’t shut up for a second.
Willemse into contact, turnover.
Quins so good at attacking the space. They go length of the field to score after the Stormers got turned over on the Quins tryline.
There are at least 5 Stormers players who are above their pay grade here. Not the time to be wearing the old WP stripes
Poor ruck defense Stormers. Wrong option by 2 as well, Matthee create the opportunity and he held on instead of feeding the backs outside.
Worry Gelant letting Marcus' midfield kick bounce and Quins are back in the Stormers 22.
David picks up a stray bounce on the pass and toddles through. 47-0
Simple break at the ruck by CS, feeds Friday, kick deep, Carr chases it down and scores. Stormers barely look interested now. 54-0
Dobson should at a. Minimum have a strong bench.
This game is a bad joke.
Some amazing tries I have to admit….perfect kick through.
Worry Gelant spins a poor high pass, knock. The gift that keeps on giving.
Friday goes off, looks like a schoolgirl but he's played a fine game at scrummie for Quins.
The 14 year old scrumhalf departs
Finally Willemse with a bit of back and forth assists for the Stormers first try. 54-5. The comeback is on!
Khan over….at least he looks like he wants to play. Duvenhage looked like a man who was missing his pipe and slippers.
Clinton Swart with a fine pass over the defense gets the Stormers in space wide.
And nice work by Matthee wrapping around the Willemse offload gets Maart away in the corner. Chalk that down to Swart's vision in the first place. 54-10
Quins continue running lines that get them in space.
The only serious item in this game is whether we saw any evidence Willemse should be at 12. He needs the 2 metres of space in front of him, to work his step. Side on, he is an easy put away and he doesn’t have the power of Esterhozen head on. Today his tackling was poor, but that’s not normally an issue.
The one modestly effective thing he did assisting in the Khan try occurred when he was in space. Involved in the Maart try, but again easily put away one on one.
To me he looks much more comfortable at 15
Anyhoo, off to save the garden from this 43 degree bullshit. Later dudes.
Yeah outside of a few moments in THAT All Black game he's done little to inspire confidence at 12.
The worst performance by the Sttotmers this yearand definitely as bad as the Bulls and Sharks were this year. The whole team was not functional - as a resut of resting of key players,
Mike this was a second string outfit out of their depth.
That said only the Stormers in the URC are doing well. But the second string is not competitive.
Our two problems are that we do not have endless depth and too many of our players are playing overseas.
Secondly how many good coaches do we have?
Then we get the MGU insisting Willemse cant at 12. Can you really judge by this. Willemse looks great at 12 for the Boks. So what is the problem. Last week even Sacha looked ordinary.
The jury is still out and Maiar Gumos should not jump to conclusions. Mozzietard is notorious for making one incident career defining. Talk about jumping to conclusions. Bwahahahahaha.
Actually Willemse played 12 only once for the Boks in his 49 tests….in a match where we blew away the ABs…..can you really judge by that? You are the one who has apparently ‘jumped to conclusions’.
...and in that one game he was at 12 for about 40 minutes. And only when he went to 15 did the Boks run away with it...while AE was at 12.
...meanwhile we have seen a bunch of poor performances from him at 12 for the Stormers. In fact, I can't really recall him have a great game at 12.
You guys need to face facts, nobody knows if Fassi will ever get his form back, and even when he is in form, Willemse is just as good at 15.
Then again, Dobbo, in all his wisdom, did play Sacha at 12 as well, which might just be the dumbest thing ever.
It was a sh!tshow, but there is a bigger picture...
Exactly ….Willemse went to 15 at minute 38 of that test and Esterhozen went to 12. At that point NZ was leading by 10 points to 7. Willemse thrived in the space we gained in the second half.
His work on defense, I’m guessing largely at 12 wasn’t great. The record shows one turnover conceded, four tackles made, 2 tackles missed. Probably an anomaly, I haven’t noticed any defensive issues.
But on attack so far his calling card has been elusiveness, not the raw power that characterizes the modern 12.
In terms of the Stormers there is about a 7 point handicap the first game after N/S travel. Which makes Bristol’s effort yesterday even more surprising.
Clearly the gap today was much greater, about as B a B team as one sees. And Duvenage was hardly in the game. The defense was non existent.
A poor strategic decision from management.
INVESTEC CHAMPIONS CUP
Harlequins 61 Stormers 10: Nick David scores hat-trick as Prem club inflict South African side’s first defeat of season to secure place in Champions Cup knockout rounds
new
Alex Spink
Sunday January 11 2026, 5.16pm GMT, The Times
Murley dives over to score one of nine tries for Harlequins as the home side put three successive Prem thrashings behind them
SHUTTERSTOCK EDITORIAL
 | Harlequins | 61 | - | 10 | Stormers |  |
| HT 33-0 | ||||||
| Investec Champions Cup11/01/2026 |
Alex Dombrandt led Harlequins to a nine-try demolition of the Stormers then demanded the London club use the performance as a benchmark for the rest of the season.
A week after the club’s hierarchy put out a statement admitting that recent performances were “unacceptable” and effectively apologising to their supporters, Harlequins booked their place in the knockout stages of the Champions Cup.
Victory over opponents who had won all ten of their previous games this season was reason to be cheerful for a side that had conceded 149 points in three successive Gallagher Prem drubbings and been called all sorts of names.
Video unavailable
The uploader has not made this video available in your country
“It’s been a tough few weeks for us,” Dombrandt, the England No8, said. “We’ve had honest conversations, players and coaches, we’ve looked at taking a bit of accountability ourselves and looked at our mindset going into games.
“Everyone at the club wants to push forward and see improvements, and I’ve been really proud with how the boys have stuck together. But, 100 per cent, this has to be the benchmark.”
Watching from the sidelines, the former Harlequins and England captain Chris Robshaw said: “They [Harlequins] now need to reflect and be honest. Enjoy this, because it’s been a tough time, but know there are tougher tests to come.
Kenningham got Harlequins off to a fast start as he opened the scoring during a man-of-the-match display
BOB BRADFORD – CAMERASPORT VIA GETTY IMAGES
“They’ve had people throwing stuff at them, people going after them. So this was a performance everyone in the organisation needed. But really reflect on this performance because there are areas in which they can still improve.”
On a freezing day, made even colder by the weather they had left behind in Cape Town, the Stormers head coach John Dobson was scathing about his own side’s inadequacies.
“That was humiliating,” he said. “We thought we had enough to compete. We didn’t compete even. They totally dominated us in the collisions. It’s a hell of a way for an unbeaten record to come crushing down.
“We were without a few players but we came here absolutely determined to win. We wanted to get through this group unbeaten. I’m really disappointed.”
Dombrandt called for his side to use the performance as the benchmark going forward after a “tough few weeks”
ANDREW FOSKER/SHUTTERSTOCK
Harlequins’ improved attitude was apparent immediately as they won a counter-ruck inside five minutes — Guido Petti and Bryn Bradley powered on before Jack Kenningham, the player of the match, finished the job after arriving on a smart angle.
They got lucky with their second, with Marcus Smith’s chip coming back off a Stormers hand straight to Luke Northmore, whose pass to Cadan Murley had enough zip on it for the England wing to get over in the corner.
From there, though, it was one-way traffic. When Jack Walker played a peach of an inside ball to Dombrandt, the Harlequins captain tore to the line, ball in one hand, for the third.
The English side were unrecognisable from the rabble of recent weeks. This was high-energy, heads-up rugby, played at pace. It might have taken a kick up the backside to provoke it, but few in the stands were complaining.
Cunningham-South goes over to secure the bonus point for Harlequins midway through the first half
ANDREW FOSKER/SHUTTERSTOCK
It does have to be viewed in context. Stormers, despite being the unbeaten leaders of the United Rugby Championship, offered precious little. Last season they turned up with half a team and were demolished. A year on, they had learnt little from the experience.
We will never know what difference the Springboks’ half-back pairing of Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu and Cobus Reinach would have made, but we can have a pretty good guess.
By the half-hour mark, the scoreboard was outpacing the clock. Chandler Cunningham-South scored Harlequins’ bonus-point try from a Kenningham charge-down before Nick David combined with Tyrone Green to bag the first score of what would become a hat-trick.
The moment that delighted Dombrandt most, however, came at the other end, where the home side won a breakdown on their own tryline, again through Kenningham, on the stroke of half-time to deny the South African team.
David scored his first try around the half-hour mark and then added two more after the break
ANDREW FOSKER/SHUTTERSTOCK
The second half continued in a similar vein, Harlequins’ players seeing the pitch as a land of opportunity rather than the place of dread that it had been in successive hammerings by Bristol Bears, Sale Sharks and Northampton Saints.
David scored twice in a minute around the hour mark before Zach Carr and Jarrod Evans came off the bench to join the scoring spree. It added up to a good day’s work, but now comes the test. Harlequins go to La Rochelle needing victory if they are to secure home advantage for the round of 16.
Ronan O’Gara’s men, on home soil and fully loaded, will present an altogether different challenge.
| Harlequins | 61 | - | 10 | Stormers | |
| HT 33-0 | ||||||
| Investec Champions Cup11/01/2026 | ||||||
| Tries | ||||||
| 9 | 9 | 2 | 2 | |||
| Passes | ||||||
| 171 | 171 | 173 | 173 | |||
| Tackles Attempted | ||||||
| 155 | 155 | 79 | 79 | |||
| Carries | ||||||
| 104 | 104 | 135 | 135 | |||
| Metres gained | ||||||
| 653 | 653 | 421 | 421 | |||
| Lineouts won (%) | ||||||
| 85.7% | 85.7% | 93.8% | 93.8% | |||
| Scrums won (%) | ||||||
| 100.0% | 100.0% | 87.5% | 87.5% | |||
| Turnovers conceded | ||||||
| 10 | 10 | 17 | 17 | |||
| Yellow cards | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Red cards | ||||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Harlequins: T Green (J Evans 60); N David, L Northmore, B Bradley, C Murley; M Smith, L Friday (M Green 64); S Kerrod (W Hobson 50), J Walker (G Turner 60), P Delgado (H Williams 42), G Petti (E Williams 60), K Treadwell, C Cunningham-South, J Kenningham (Z Carr 60), A Dombrandt (T Lawday 60).
Stormers: W Gelant (J Matthee 66); D Maart, S Hartzenberg, D Willemse (C Swart 7-19), L Burger (M Ndhlovu 57); J Matthee (C Swart 61), D Duvenage (I Khan 53); O Kebble (V Matongo 53), L Vokozela (S Ntubeni 56), Z Porthen (H van Wyk 60), C Evans (A Groves 60), R van Heerden, L Nel (W Mlaba 53), B Dixon, M Theunissen.
Referee: N Amashukeli (Georgia).
| Pos.PWDL+/-PTS | ||||||||
| 1 |  | Glasgow Warriors | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 15 |
| 2 |  | Sale Sharks | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 11 |
| 3 |  | Saracens | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 32 | 6 |
| 4 |  | Stade Toulousain | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 30 | 6 |
| 5 |  | Sharks | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -48 | 5 |
| 6 |  | ASM Clermont Auvergne | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | -70 | 0 |
To my mind the case for DW 12 is denied and closed.
It was never really a strong case anyway. Basically built on "I'm sure he can play 12" rather than "here is my evidence for him excelling at 12" while the evidence for him being a great 15 is overwhelming.
The question is this; When a guy that has absolutely proven that he has great success at 15 and when he is so good in that position that he would walk into most other teams on earth as a 15...and he is 27, what is the fascination with moving him to 12?
And here's the kicker. Supposedly Roos could never play 12, and that's an ignorant idea to entertain.
...but who has more of the attributes needed for a South African 12? Dawie already admits that Roos is a linking 8(stating he has great handling skills, looks too offload, etc). And of course, the one thing that DW doesn't have, the grunt to hold the ball up and power over the advantage line against backs in traffic.
Here is the Rucker's logic. Take the best 15 in the world, force him in at 12 where has never been nearly as good but totally shit on the idea that a forward can transition to 12 despite the Bok team literally having 2 hybrid players in the side right now and one of those players being selected every week. There is an understanding developing that having such a players has numerous advantages, which we actually saw this season in games where the Boks perma red cards.
Some things are certain, Roos at 12 would a rock solid defender and consistently get you over the advantage line. Can we agree on that?
The argument against Roos at 12 is becoming thinner by the day.
Note the passing, line breaks and pace...
After you've watched above video, and if you think that DW would make a better 12 than Roos, then feel free to post any highlights video you like that shows DW doing more 12 like things then you see Roos doing above.
Watched about 2 minutes of that, you have a point Plum. The specific point is Roos is trying to succeed as an 8th man, by demonstrating he is a hard yards man. He’s not bad, but there are better….notably Wiese.
But put him in space and he is as fast as and stronger than almost all 12s.
Which brings us to an interesting question. Have rugby positions been too subscribed. We have, according to some, Dud Toit succeeding at flank and Venter looking impressive. We have Esterhozen also succeeding at flank. But is flank the only position that’s malleable? .
Clearly the front row isn’t malleable. Lock seems to be accommodating a few body types….breekers and tall athletes ….lifting favors the latter in lineouts,
Wings and fullbacks vary very significantly….Lomu to Kolbe. But given how a center like Dud Allende plays, why can’t you consider strong running loosies for this position? It doesn’t have high specific skills like flyhalf.
It would certainly be a fascinating experiment to put Roos out there against a minow and gauge the results.
WOW
Is your mind expanding Dave….grip your cheeks firmly and push hard inwards to stop the process.
Yeah that will be it
I was thinking Kolbe at hooker might work as well - prolong his career when he loses pace
At scrumhalf…. Seriously if Esterhozen can excel at flank why can’t an open sider excel at 12. We reject the notion viscerally but …..fetching, offloading, defense, running in traffic is common to both positions.
Not every center is strong enough for flank and not every flank has the wheels for 12, but Roos does. Esterhozen had no opportunity until he became a hybrid. Roos might be in the same position because his old man pissed off Geraasmus,…maybe this is a way out for him.
I’d be interested to see it tried….perhaps just once. And I’d feel sorry for the opponent who has to stop him in space.
Roos at 12 with Wiese and Hanekom off the back of the scrum, Elreigh and andre off the bench.
I don't think there a 10 in world rugby that would fancy that
Pipe dream though.
Because Roos does not have the nuances of a rugby centre, something built over years of having played the position
Centre is the most difficult position on the field to shine
A centres rugby IQ is accumulated over time, He has subconsciously banked attacking and defensive reads through repetition
Roos would be owned at centre - he would be predictable and easily contained - does not have the soft touch of a classy centre but mostly does not have the rugby IQ of a centre
Esterhuizen moving to flank is the easy switch - mentally it requires a switch down from centre while relying on the physical aspect of his game that has served him so well at 12
There is no way in hell Roos would make it as a 12 - maybe playing for WP against the EP Elephants at CC level he would look half decent at 12, but forget it at Stormers level and less so at test level
Centre is the hardest position on the field - only the very, very best make a bit of an impression at test level and it’s the very reason test sides other than SA keep changing their centres never banking on the same player over time. Coaches are always in search of that one that will stand a little taller
I quite enjoyed the game to be honest. Nice to see Quins get back to winning ways…..
"Roos would be owned at centre - he would be predictable and easily contained - does not have the soft touch of a classy centre but mostly does not have the rugby IQ of a centr
Lol, the bag of contradictions. Willemse is supposedly our next 12 yet has limited experience at 12 and never really excelled when he's there. How long does it take to "bank those reads", Dave? How many games has Willemse started at 12 over his pro career. I'm gonna bet it's less than 20.
Playing at 12 apparently requires some savant level finesse though, as anybody with eyes that watches rugby can see, the majority is crash ball and setting up rucks. When the hell last did anyone here leave a Bok game thinking "Wow, DDA has such finesse!". Never? You've got to be kidding haha
On the one hand there is no space at 12, and that's why DDA never does anything while on the other hand there is space at 12 and that's why Willemse should play there...apparently he can make space. But wouldn't that mean that there has always been space there but DDA could simply never find it?
You make up the facts as you go along, Dave.
Feel free to post that video of Willemse doing more 12-like things than you see Roos doing above. Any time now...
PS Proudfoot recently spoke about this exact topic. That of hyper athletic guys that are big enough for the pack and skilful enough for the backs. He rambled off a series of names, and Roos was among them. The point being, the topic is nowhere near as outlandish as your jargon loaded opinion attempts to make it sound.
Fuck me so Willemse has limited experience at 12 having played there all through his formative years and probably 50% of his professional career - fuck your are stupid - seriously
Willemse was brilliant at 12 against the AB’s and was one of the few positives over the weekend and was good last week at 12
Willemse at 12 is about playing it differently as he did against the AB’s. DA crashed aplenty but he also played it as a classical 12 does, implying he did not is a lie.
Its fucking insulting to centres saying Roos could do as a good a job - saying he could evidences your limited understanding of the game
I quite enjoyed the game to be honest.
Be honest .... you enjoyed seeing our fellas getting hammered.:)
There is zero pleasure in watching an A side thump a B side it’s says nothing about either side other than the inept management of the coaching unit that chose to send a B side onto the field
The Saints A side got its arse kicked
No blob, I didn’t ! I support your guys most of the time…..except when they’re playing my team……so I was surprised to see the Stormers ( albeit an underpowered side ) get such a comprehensive beating.
The Saints A side were missing Fin Smith and his replacement had a serious facial injury which must have affected his play. I knew we were going to get a beating. I’m just sorry we didn’t play better on the day, Saffolk.
Fin Smith missing does not change the fact that was your A side that got thumped
George Furbank was also missing, as was Fraser Dingwall.
As I said, I expected a beating so stop gloating, Saffolk….
Every side has players missing
Having played flyhalf, center and fullback, center was by far the easiest position. Defense was actually trickier than ball in hand. It’s an insult to flankers to say flanker is a dumb down from center. How could the ‘greatest’ player of all time be dumb?
Yes, Saffolk, I am aware of that.
I played flyhalf, centre and fullback as well and centre was by far the most difficult to make an impression - on attack and by far the most challenging defensively. Fullback was the easiest of the 3, more time, more space.
A flank compared to centre is like chalk and cheese in terms of skill set and rugby IQ required
Played properly you might be able to defend your contention,…12 played the way we have played it? No brains at all required, I doubt Allende’s IQ is in the top10 of our 15 starters.
Bullshit re de Allende - just because he has had to crash it up a lot of the time as all test 12’s do does not mean that was all he is about
There are only a handful of you clowns on here that don’t rate him - the majority of rugby followers rate him highly and rightly so
Centre is the hardest position on a rugby field of that there is no doubt
No test forward today or in the past would ever have made a test standard centre over a period of time
And yet, even though he is exactly the same player he was 8 years ago….you can’t wait to replace him with Willemse. What are you trying to say Dave?
He is not the same player he is 34 - only reason I want him replaced is his age - none of the older players are the same as they were 5 years ago - especially the likes of Bongi, Willie, Mostert and Am. Geez even Eben is starting to make me question and of late Pollard
I see no difference in Allende’s game except the addition of the occasional inept grubber.
Both Duds are probably playing their best rugby, in Dud Allende’s case it’s just finally apparent to most that his ‘best’ is very one dimensional.
Okay, let's start with one bit of nonsense..
"Fuck me so Willemse has limited experience at 12 having played there all through his formative years and probably 50% of his professional career - fuck your are stupid - seriously"
1) That 12 was Willemse's position at school? All sources I can find suggest he played at 10. All I read is that he played at 10 exclusively.
--> Site your sources because here are mine.
2) Willemse has started 50% of pro games at 12.
In about 50 Boks tests, he has played at 12 once and played there for under one half of rugby.
He has just over 100 caps for the Stormers.
I'm gonna say that he has less than 20 caps at 12. But let's be generous and say that he started at 12 in 30 games.
We could could of course ask anybody here that actually watches rugby and they would confirm that he has started way more than half his caps at 15, while also having a good amount at 10...and then roughly 20-30 at 12.
At the age of 27, this seasons has seen him started more at 12 than any season before...I count 6 starts.
TLDR; DW never played at 12 during his formative years. In DW's just over 150 caps, he has started at 12 about 20-30 times which equates to roughly 15% of his career or about 1 season's worth of matches.
Now, let's revisit this statement from Dawie;
"Because Roos does not have the nuances of a rugby centre, something built over years of having played the position
Centre is the most difficult position on the field to shine
A centres rugby IQ is accumulated over time, He has subconsciously banked attacking and defensive reads through repetition"
We now know that DW has roughly one season's worth of starts at 12.
So, Dawie, do you still stand by all these statements of yours? Those being that DW has spent most of his life playing at 12 and that you can only play at 12 after years and years of playing in that position?
PS I say most his life because you stated all his school career which would be around 100 games and then 50% of his pro career(+-150) games...so 100 + 75 =175 out of about 250 games.
Don't be a bitch now, Dawie. Either stand on your words or admit you were talking shit and apologise.
Yes Buttplug I stand by my take on Willemse playing 12 for most of his formative years - you know why because his Paul Roos coach said as much a good few years back. Said he played 12 all through his age group rugby but they moved him to 10 in matric
For WP he has probably played 15 and 12 for the majority of his career with some of his time at 10
So let’s just say Willemse has played more than 100 games at 12 in his life versus the fucking zero Roos has - get it???
Try wake up
Did you actually watch Willemse against Quins Dave .. if so describe what you saw
Yes I saw him against Quins - with little ball in hand I saw him beat some defenders with his stepping and I saw him set up the reserve 9’s try
Nothing much to report on given how poor the Stormers were but he was one of the better Stormers players
Willemse has nothing to prove to anyone - he is a seasoned campaigner and an incredible talent
Versatile but needed at 12 for both the Stormers and in particular the Boks for the obvious reason stated on numerous occasions - we need to replace DA and AE at 12, we have Fassi at 15 and Willemse is by a country mile the obvious choice at 12. We need him at 12 for the Stormers for the benefit of his role there for the Boks and the fact the Stormers are short of centres and have Gelant at 15
All pretty obvious really and I’m guessing Rassie thinks the same as he is a big fan of Fassi and Willemse and who would not want them both in the Bok starting side
Actually he isn’t the obvious choice, he is a candidate. If we continue crash ball rugby he won’t do well. If we play an open game he might succeed but how many late career position shifts have worked.
And given we literally don’t know the answer about tactics and don’t have a single example of his center success to use as a measuring stick, it’s not obvious.
As for the Quins game he was put away easily, missed tackles and really did nothing of note. Willemse is a talent at 15 and Fassi hasn’t regained form, this all has to be settled on the field of play
It’s very obvious to me and he is not making a positional switch, he is a very accomplished 12
He has already proved himself at 12 as has Fassi at 15. This notion that Fassi’s form is poor is utter bullshit and even if it was a little off it’s not like he won’t regain form - he is too classy not to - class is permanent, form temporary
Willemse playing the crash ball is pretty effective as we have seen and which he showed against Quins
Your take on his display against Quins is utter bullshit. He was put away easily - bullshit, yes he missed two tackles, everyone misses tackles, his defence is usually a strength of his. Did nothing of note - bullshit - he beat defenders and set up a try - fact
Willemse is the only viable option to replace DA and AE at 12 and Fassi will walk straight back into the Bok 15 jersey in June if he is fit.
If you wanted evidence of Willemse at 12 look no further than the NZ test - against the best opposition in the game
When last, if ever have we seen a display like that from a Bok 12. DA, AE nor Jean have ever had a test like that in their careers
" We need him at 12 for the Stormers for the benefit of his role there for the Boks and the fact the Stormers are short of centres and have Gelant at 15 "
For the Benefit of his role for the Boks?? He has been selected a couple of times at inside centre, yes. But it would benefit the Boks far more if he played at fullback. He is our best option in that position, hands down.
Stormers are short of Centres?? That's not true:
Johnathon Roche, Joshua Boulle, Luke Burger, upcoming young star Markus Muller. Older core: Ruhan Nel, Dan Dup. Damian Markus, Wandisile Simelane.
As for Gelant at 15, his form has been poor, and he is the weakest defender in that position.
Dodson should seriously consider bringing in more backup at fullback to assist Damian Willemse.
Oh fuck off your rugby ignorance is boring
Last I checked, facts aren’t ignorance. Disagree if you want, but at least bring some substance.
You would not know what substance is if it slapped you in the face
Too stupid to acknowledge that Willemse has NEVER made the impression at fullback for the Boks as he did at 12 and given this fact still stupid enough to conclude that he is our best option at 15, hands down, thereby ignoring how brilliant Fassi was at 15 a season ago
I rest my case - plain stupidity or profound rugby ignorance - take your pick
Fact is, Willemse made his name for the Boks at fullback, not at 12. His cover defence against New Zealand, his World Cup performances and multiple try assists from 15 are facts, not opinions.
Even in that All Blacks game you keep pointing to, your only evidence by the way, he moved back to 15 after halftime and Esterhuizen went to 12.
That’s when the game opened up and Willemse influenced it more, from his natural position.
Calling his fullback performances unimpressive ignores years of evidence and that’s the true definition of Rugby ignorance and plain stupidity.
It also shows how low you’re willing to go to ridicule Damian at 15, just to support your biased narrative for him at 12. Your hypocrisy stinks...
Fassi is a talented runner, but he has been inconsistent, injury prone, and a weak defender.
At international level, especially for the Boks, being defensively solid and decision making matter as much as attack. Willemse brings that consistently at 15.
You’re free to prefer Fassi at 15 and Willemse at 12, but don’t dress opinion as fact while ignoring what actually happened on the field. That’s not substance, that’s cherry picking.
Boom
Oh for fuck sake you idiot - everything he did against the AB’s was when he slotted into the 12 spot - how many more times do you need to be told this huh?
More to the point, why the fuck do I need to educate you on where he made an impression from against the AB’s
It sums up how rugby ignorant you are - only a plank would be stupid enough to conclude that because he moved to 15 in the second half, everything he did was from fullback
This is the stupidity I have to deal with on here - posters literally watch a game they know so little about
Beyond fucking irritating - it’s like talking rugby with a 5 year old
Stick to using AI at least then you come across as a halfwit
Not only that, but Dave talks absolute shyte about Willemse playing 12 at school.
Articles mentioning Damien Willemse at various points during high school. These range from grade 8 to 12...constantly referring to him as a flyhalf.
https://stormers.co.za/willemse-relishing-junior-bok-opportunity/
https://rugby365.com/schools/news-sa-schools/paul-roos-celebrate-victory/
https://sacsrugby.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/U18-CRAVEN-WEEK-.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Lol, I can literally not find a single article that talks about him at 12.
So, I guess the evidence must wrong.
Man up, Dave...admit you don't know what you're talking about.
"Too stupid to acknowledge that Willemse has NEVER made the impression at fullback for the Boks as he did at 12 and given this fact still stupid enough to conclude that he is our best option at 15, hands down, thereby ignoring how brilliant Fassi was at 15 a season ago"
Whahahahaha!!!!
Surely you are trolling with this.
Unbelievable, really!
Well let’s see Dave appears to have accepted that all Willemse’s Wellington contributions were in the second half….when he was actually playing fullback, but ‘fitted into the 12 slot’. This exposure at 12 is now based on ‘fitting in to the 12 slot’ for half a game. Will this impress Geraasmus, not so far it seems.
In the meantime a glance at Willemse’s impressive match stats of 97 meters in 14 runs with 6 defenders beaten, draws the eye to Hooker who made 97 meters in 11 runs with 5 defenders beaten. Not a sheet of paper between them. But of course Hooker didn’t fit in to 12 channel.
And of course somewhere in 40 minutes on the park Esterhozen has to have been in 12 channel. He seemed quite frisky with a try and an assist compared to Willemse’s impressive try. Still he can’t be the answer for the WC, he’d be as old as Dud Allende was at the end of last season.
Here’s a howdy do!
Lol Willemse played at 12 throughout high school...then he played 12 and 10...now we find out that he basically played exclusively at 10.
I'm still waiting to hear why Willemse's total of about one season's worth of starts at 12 means that he has the "necessary data" to play at 12. 5 minutes ago the requirement for years of 12 experience was used as the primary reason for excluding Roos from ever doing it.
Quite a muddle, wouldn't you say, Dawie?
Buttplug you really are a pathetic fucking liar - there is no article mentioning Willemse playing 10 at lower age group levels you lying prick
I recall his Paul Roos coach saying he had played 12 most of his school playing career and was moved to 10 playing for the first team
Your references are when he was playing first team you fucking idiot
At Paul Roos, Willemse did play a fair amount of rugby at 12 early on, especially in his junior and mid-school years. He was:
So coaches initially used him as an inside centre who could straighten, carry hard, and still distribute.
What did happen is that towards the latter part of his school career, Paul Roos shifted him more deliberately to 10:
“He started at 12, but once we realised how complete his skill set was, we moved him to flyhalf.”
So the accurate picture is:
Which actually explains perfectly why he’s so comfortable at Test 12 now — he’s not learning it late, he’s returning to it with a fully developed pro skill set.
Case closed
Dave, you mong...look a the years in which those articles were written...
The first is from 2016...
The second is from 2015...
The two years at school where he will have played his most competitive and most important rugby, we know for a fact he played at 10. There is actual evidence to prove it.
So, we know for a fact he played at 10 in grades 11 and 12. Which is far from you initial statement that "Yes Buttplug I stand by my take on Willemse playing 12 for most of his formative years -"
You are taking one statement from his coach and deciding what number you want to put on it. But ya, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say he played at 12 from grades 8 to 10...lol. Those highly meaningful years hahaha
So, the question remains...how much experience does he actually have at 12?
Are you still of the opinion that over his 100 caps for the Stompies he has started 50 games at 12?
Also, if you're gonna use AI, be kind enough to tell us the query that you entered and that you are pasting an AI response...
EG Query;
Can you confirm that Damian Willemse played most of his school rugby at 10?
Response;
It’s well documented that Damian Willemse played most — and by several accounts all — of his school rugby at flyhalf (No. 10).
So while Damian Willemse has since become known as a modern, versatile back — comfortable at fullback, centre, or flyhalf — his roots were firmly at No. 10 throughout his school rugby journey.
Question to ChatGPT and response:
In which position did Damian Willemse play thru his high school years and straight after school?
During his high school years at Paul Roos Gymnasium, Damian Willemse was mainly recognised as a fly-half (No 10), especially in age-group representative rugby such as Craven Week where he played that position for Western Province in 2016.
ruggas.co.za +1
He also played for South Africa Schools in 2015 and 2016, where his role in the backline reflected his playmaking skills, running ability and kicking game typical of a fly-half.
stormers.co.za
Straight after school when he joined the Stormers / Western Province senior ranks in 2017, he transitioned into more of a utility back role.
Early senior appearances came primarily at fullback off the bench, but he has since been used across the backline — at fly-half (10), inside centre (12/13) and fullback (15) — because of his versatility.
SuperSport +1
So in summary:
High school (Paul Roos Gymnasium): mainly fly-half.
ruggas.co.za
Straight after school / early senior rugby: started out mainly at fullback in professional matches, then became a versatile utility back covering 10, 12/13 and 15.
LOL ou Dawid makes these statements and then totally embarrasses himself trying to force them to be true when the evidence doesn't support them at all.
Learn to pivot, Dave, it'll save you blowing up that throbbing vein in your flat forehead haha
Your articles say fuck all about what position Willemse played while at school you idiot.
I think the Paul Roos coach would know what position he played in at school don’t you think?
But let’s put that to one side for now as you are too fucking stupid to work out the difference between Willemse’s experience at 12 vs that of Roos at 12.
Im guessing that in the whole time Willemse has played the game that he must have played 12 at least 100 times - that is 100 times more than Roos you dumbfuck.
But here is another fact for you to ponder - something clearly beyond your rugby comprehension. Willemse has also played much of his rugby as an attacking 10, one position in from 12 and a very close match in terms of attacking skill set required especially considering how Willemse played fly half
So let’s say 100 times at 12 and 100 times at 10 - that’s all of 200 times more than Roos and more than enough time to learn the fine arts of those positions and nailing down the nuances of the position
Roos has fucking zero of that - get it?
Fuck you are beyond rugby dumb, but at least you are a step of Mpuff
Your articles say fuck all about what position Willemse played while at school you idiot.
LMFAO at the lawyer that can't read.
https://stormers.co.za/willemse-relishing-junior-bok-opportunity/
"Talented DHL Stormers and SA Schools ***flyhalf*** Damian Willemse is relishing the opportunity to stake a claim for a place in the Junior Springbok team to travel to the World Rugby U20 Championship in Georgia in May, and vowed that he will do his best to be selected for the 28-man touring squad."
...where Damian then goes on to say...
"“I started taking rugby seriously in Grade 10 when I was selected for the Western Province Coca-Cola U16 Grant Khomo Week team, and it was then and there that I decided I wanted to become a professional rugby player."
Dave, look at the articles, mong boy.
They are clearly dated. We have evidence of Damian saying he only started taking rugby seriously in std 8...and then we have articles from when he was in std9 and matric saying he was playing at fly half.
Why are you still trying to make the fact fit you opinion.
You were wrong. He did not play at 12 throughout high school...or even for most of high school. He may have when he just got to high school but he spent most of his time at school, most of his high level rugby at school, playing at 10.
Haha facts are such nasty little nuisances, huh?
Your articles say fuck all about what position Willemse played while at school you idiot.
LMFAO even more
https://rugby365.com/schools/news-sa-schools/paul-roos-celebrate-victory/
"Affies started the second half attacking but Paul Roos then got deep into their opponents' territory with a long kick by flyhalf Damien Willemse."
Perhaps you should simply admit that you can't read.
Um stop fucking lying you idiot - at no point does it mention him playing in a certain position other than when he played in the first team you dunce. A point I raised originally.
His coach said he was moved from 12 to 10 when he played in the first team - I recall that clearly some years ago when Willemse first starting making waves
Be my guest and provide evidence of the positions he played in from U9 to U16 to back up the shit you are sucking out of your thumb
But more to the point - how fucking stupid do you look maintaining that Willemse lacks exposure at 12 and 10 given he played 10 like a 12, which is why he never really worked at 10 given his inability to manage a game with his boot from 10. His hand to foot was always slow
Willemse has more than enough exposure at 12 to have nailed down every aspect of the position - only a fucking idiot would state otherwise
As for Roos he has sweet fuck expose to any position in the backs - so do us a favour and stop embarrassing yourself with this pathetic notion that Roos would make a 12 - idiot
Dave, you're flustered. I have shown you that he played at 10 in GR11 & 12.
You went from saying he played most of rugby at 12...to now saying that he only started playing 10 when he was in the 1sts.
...but he played in the 1st team in his final two years of school and he said he only started taking rugby seriously a year before that, in GR10.
So he played no meaningful rugby at 12 while he was at school. We don't even know if he played at 12 from GR8 to 10...there is zero evidence of that other than a coach saying that he was 12 at some point. How do we know he didn't play other positions?
Lol I love watching you try to squirm your way out of your stupid opinions when the facts don't match them.
You burst out of the gates with a raging opinion, it turned out to be horse shit, and now you look like a fool.
The smallest of men.
Willemse is a proven success at 15…..he was a flop at 10 …..now, late in his career, with no professional match evidence, we want to change him to 12 and bring back Fassi who hasn’t impressed since injury over a year ago. Geraasmus has other options at 12 with either more proven credentials .. .Esterhozen, or with a much longer runway….Hooker.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Bullshit Buttplug I said from the start that the coach said Willemse was moved to 10 when he started playing for the first team
You are lying
Moz try wake up - Willemse proved his credentials as a test 12 against the AB’s
His performance on that day is better than anything Jean, DA or AE have ever produced in a test at 12
What on earth would be the point of investing in Esterhuizen at 12 given he is 32 and would effectively mean Rassie would be settling for his second best option at 12 given DA has been his preferred choice from day one
Hooker has proved stuff all at 12 to date
Fassi is a class act and it’s absolute bullshit that he has not been good for a whole year - utter rubbish
Fact is Fassi is ideal at 15, has the pace to exploit space while Willemse lacks the out and out pace required for a 15
Willemse is best suited to 12, as he proved against the AB’s and it’s where the Boks need him just as they do Fassi at 15
Only a fool would not want Fassi and Willemse starting in the same side and thankfully Rassie sees it that way as well
He proved his credentials playing from 15….his first half in Wellington at 12 was a nothing burger.
The point of selecting Esterhozen is to win the RWC.
I agree Hooker has to prove himself at 12, but to prove himself at 12 he has to play at 12
Fassi was always vulnerable defensively, but great on attack. But he hasn’t been that great on attack since being injured.
Willemse is best suited at 15, By your own measure which you used for years to justify the tractor at 12, physicality is a big part of the mix. Willemse is marginally dangerous in traffic and very dangerous in space . 15=space …12=traffic
Geraasmus picked Willemse at 12 in a game he decided to play it wide open and that gave him an excuse if we lost again. Since then he went back to box kicks and defense….against the Bargies, France and Ireland, all the games we had to win against good opposition. Who knows if Willemse at 12 is in his plans.
You lot still at it?
Oh wow we are back to the utter stupidity of saying Willemse was at 15 in the second half against the AB’s
Are you guys really really this stupid?
His two man of the match moments in the second half were created from the 12 spot - do I really need to tell you this. His try was created from slotting in at 12 as was the try he set up
Neither were created from the fullback position. Geez having to tell you this is like having to tell a 5 year old that because a certain player has a 15 on his back does not mean that everything he does on the field that day is as a 15 - hellooooooo
Old man Esterhuizen will not win us the next WC playing 12 - he will be past it and Willemse is a better 12 anyway
Bullshit regarding Fassi being off since his injury and utter bullshit regarding his defence - this is another pathetic example of a supporter incapable of moving on from their original take on a player. Fassi had a defensive issue - Rassie dropped him from the squad because of that
Fassi went away, put on some muscle and sorted his defensive issues out. Move on and try get with the present
Our next WC will see Fassi at 15 with Willemse at 12 and with that we will win the next WC
A fantasy supported by……nothing. But at least you admit Fassi had defensive issues to correct. For you it’s enough that he’s tried to address them. No need to verify that it worked. The try Willemse scored against a reeling NZ team had more to do with pathetic tackling than anything else.
It reminded me of Dud Allende’s try against Wales in the 2019 WC. Dud ran straight, he never stepped and succeeded because of feeble high tackling from Biggar. Likewise Willemse powered through powder puff tackling. Not so last week against Quins when I doubt he beat a tackle.
Willemse is a talented player, but he would be a very different 12 to Dud Allende. Given the choice today Geraasmus picks the Dud every time and picks Willemse at 15.
Since the NZ test Dud Allende, Esterhozen and Ethan Hooker have played at 12….against minnows and real opposition. Willie was available as was Kolbe. Why not against minnows like Italy and Japan give Willemse a run at 12.
Geraasmus’ selections since Wellington are more consistent with a coach that has decided Willemse is best at 15, than a coach who thinks the golden pathway leads through Willemse at 12,
Supported by nothing other than Dave's opinion, and a good helping of lies about DW having played half his rugby at 12.
Come now Plum, I remember when I was a barefoot pikkie playing 15 for Springs U 12 Schools I had the software of a test 15. Likewise Willemse at 12, if he ever played there.
Our source is Dave’s memory of a coach, unclear at what level, remembering he had been moved to 12. How many times unclear. How successfully unclear. When the coach said this unclear. But on the basis of that refutation, the burden of proof flips and you have to prove he didn’t play at 12:
‘Be my guest and provide evidence of the positions he played in from U9 to U16 to back up the shit you are sucking out of your thumb’
The null hypothesis has shifted to Willemse is a 12, you disprove it…from ….provide some evidence he has real experience at 12. Cunning stuff from Dave's legal days.
"Fuck me so Willemse has limited experience at 12 having played there ***all through*** his formative years and probably 50% of his professional career - fuck your are stupid - seriously"
Lol and we now know that is not the case at all. All we find is that any rugby that he played at school that meant anything was at 10.
All ou Dawie needs to do, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is admit that he erred. But the little man inside won't allow it.
And when we look at how often he has been at 12 during his pro career. He has just over 100 Stormers caps and about 50 Bok caps. Remember, Dawie claimed it was 50% bwhahaha!!!
On the face of it, his Bok career makes up 1/3 of his pro games. And we know that he only played at 12 a grand total of 0.5 times...lol 38 minutes, for the Boks.
So, to arrive at 50% of his career at 12, which is spastic Dave's contention...and considering that Willemse has just over 150 pro games under the belt, he would have had to play around 75 of his slightly more than 100 Stormers games at 12.
I wonder if there is anybody on this site, literally anyone, who agrees that Willemse has played even 50 games at 12 for the Stormers.
In the real world, separate from Dave's spastic, deluded, throbbing vein, extra chromosome induced idiocy, Willemse has probably started somewhere between 15 and 30 games at 12 for the Stormers.
...making up nowhere near 50%, not even close.
...and of course that flies directly in the face of his other statement;
""Because Roos does not have the nuances of a rugby centre, something built over years of having played the position "
Lol...DW has a cumulative total of one year's experience at 12, unless you count his highly vaunted exploits for the U15s.
And now that Dawie has zero defence he's gonna say "Well that's still more than Roos".
Perhaps we should thank Captain obvious for his highly intellectual and very informative contributions. All he really wants is a medal for competing...and watching highlights ;)
14,791 posts
7-0 Quins already.