Rating of Springboks iro Round 1

I have looked at the game yesterday and mu rating of the Springboks (past and present) based on yesterdays performance is as follows:-

Willie le Roux          -    7,5/10

Bjorn Basson           -      2/10   *

Lwazi Mvovo            -      7/10

JJ Engelbrecht         -     5,5/10

Francois Steyn        -    7,5/10

Jan Serfontin          -    5,5/10

Patrick Lambie        -       8/10

Francois Hougaard  -       2/10   *

Pierre Spies            -       5/10

Willem Alberts         -      2/10   *

Marcell Coetzee       -    7,5/10

Flip van der Merwe  -    6,5/10

Pieter-Steph du Toit -   6,5/10

Jannie du Plessis      -      5/10

Tendai Mtawarire     -      7/10          

 Adriaan Strauss       -   7.5/10 

Bismarck du Plessis  -     7/10

*  Totally  unacceptable performances

Good performers

Willie le Roux, Lwazi Mvovo, Francois Steyn,  Patrick Lambie,  Marcell Coetzee,  

Flip van der Merwe, Pieter-Steph du Toit, Tendai Mtawarire, Adriaan Strauss, Bismarck du Plessis

Average Performers - improvement URGENTLY NEEDED

JJ Engelbrecht, Jan Serfontein, Pierre Spies, Jannie du Plesssis

Disgraceful Performers - worse than poor

Bjorn Basson,  Francois Hougaard, Willem Alberts

Comments - with supporting evidence - to change the above ratings will be appreciated.  

I am going to keep the above scorecard going through the series - averaging out the points per game allocated.

 What a disappointment. Had picked the Cheetahs to win and the Bulls for an upset.

Last time i'll back those sides this season.  

Especially now that Goosens gone, the Cheetahs are screwed aren't they?  and Le Roux can't win it by himself.

 Lets see how Beeanobs Stormers go next week otherwise i'll have to back the Sharks as SAfricas only hope of competing with NZ and Aus teams this year.

Sharkbok

We will see next week what team changes are made.   I would say all of Basson, Hougaard and Alberts may be omitted from the starting line-ups - which will le ave their ratings unchanged - since I did not and will not rate bench players now and in future. 

 Beeno

Albeerts was a slow tarter last year in Super 15 and remained a slow player throughout the series.  What makes you think he would be any different this year?   He obviously think his reputation would help him retain his place in the Springbok team.

Hougaard really was a joke in bad taste.  His service was shit poor at the best of times and like the case was with Jordaan playing the fool with Engelbrecht, Reinach played the fool with him.   Something tells me he is not a scrummie anymore - but will Saffex ever realise and admit it.

I would also play Pollard ahead of Fouche at 10.          

Sun Tzu

I really am disappointed  - Mozart made a desperate effort to defend the performance of Willem Alberts (his reasoning was totally off the mark though)  - but you have not done the sane.   Do you in fact agree he had a disgustingly poor game?  

Sasue 

I di not try and rate the non-Springboks - s0 I did not allocate a rating to Marais   

I like him a lot and have a high opinion of him. I disagree with you about le Roux  - he tried to so too much though and that did not work out.

Mozart

This is amazing - what did I copy from whom - I never saw any other ratings by anyone - the above us my own version.  

Secondly - what did I lie about?  If it about your comments on Alberts - allow me to quote it for you:-

"Solid stuff from Alberts in a tight contest. Unfortunately some pundits don't see the power he brings in the close exchanges, unlike Coetzee who was tossed like a toothpick by Hougaard."

What I did say subsequently was that there was nothing solid and nothing else as well - that resembles anything near a satisfactory performance at all. 

If you disagree with the ratings - please comment and supply supporting evidence to change the above ratings - it will  be sincerely appreciated.   Let me add vague descriptions like "the power he brings in the close exchanges" are suppositions unless supported by evidence of such exchanges.   I could not find one such exchange where the description was in evidence.  So please - if I missed out on them clarify the issue by examples involving Alberts - not anyone else..    

Oh sure Clever, 7 hours after I post that I will be tracking the Newbies game by game, you announce that you will be tracking the Springboks game by game. When you steal ideas it's usual to acknowledge it. Or, let  me guess, it's just a coincidence.

My version:

February 15, 2014, 23:14:28

I am adding a    "+   -    0" rating for each prospective newbie each week they play. This simply indicates if they have a positive indication for test rugby, a neutral indication or a negative indication. Note this doesn't necessarily correspond were their performance in the game....it is a test indicator. For example I thought Goosen had an average game, but his fragility came through as a negative indicator. At the end of the S15 we will add add up the scores.

Clever's version posted Feb 16 at 6.45:

"I am going to keep the above scorecard going through the series - averaging out the points per game allocated."

Thus Plagiarism

 Mozart

Please - it has nothing to do with your scorecard on newbies.   I give ratings in numbers out of 10 per game.   In Round 2 I add the rating for that fame and divide the result by 2, etc   

I never even looked at your item properly and it is not remotely similar what you are doing.   Even if it was in some ways similar - it has nothing to do with newbes and everything to do with existing  and past Springboks.   By your comments are you in fact implying that I am not allowed to rate the players - because you have a system applicable to newbies?  

In the end - you are not giving an actual scorecard on players in any event - so the plagiarism argument is really on thin ice.

I assume you have no real comments to make on the points actually allocated to the various players.    If you feel the points are wrong - please comment.   I am open to suggestions.

Watched both games and have the following comments:

1. Springboks at this stage do not have a fly-half. Lions fly-half was the best on offer.

2. A young good player will always show up an ex (good) old player. Victor is a has been.

3. Sharks scrum-half had a great game, outclassed Hougie completely.

4. Sharks #8 (Kankan) completely earned his place as first choice for the #8 jersey for the Sharks. Well read and selected by White....class.

5. Liked the Cheet's wing ...Raymond Rhule and once again Willie showed his class at 15.

Overhaul it is early season but some players appear to have gone backwards.

Generally liked the effort put up by the younger players from all four teams.

Hope they stay free of injury and gain experience during S15 and mature to great SPRINGBOKS.

At last there is hope ...........I hope.

Keagan

I always hope for improvement in player performances - but that is not always forthcoming.   Insofar as Alberts is concerned - there is a problem,  It may be one of two things:-

*  He does not regard it necessary to pot in hard work - because he thinks he is assured of selection to the Sharks and Springbok teams abd actual performances in games is not of consequence.

*  The tempo of the Super 15 games may be too fast and does not fit his style of play.   This is why he is in Super 15 more like an extra lock and his loosie performances become questionable.   The situation was rather similar last year - when he actually was below par.   For instance he played in 7 matches with a tackle count of 6 tackles per match  and a missed tackle ratio of nearly 18%,   In Super 15 the average tackle rate of acceptable loosies are  circa 8 to 9 and good loosies acerage above 10 tackles per march.    A missed tackle ratio of between 5 and 8% is good - between  9 and 12% acceptable,   If you analyse his performances last year carefully - the rest of his performances was on par. 

There is a chance of improvement - but I am not sure whether he would mentally feel it necessary to improve.

As to Hougaard - U admired him when he came onto the scene.    Something happened in 2012 and he went sour.   There could have been a coaching problem and I suggested that he gets an intensive coaching programme with a guy like Divan Serfontein.   I for instance think that there is something amiss in his "rugby" thinking 0 in other words it is all in his mind.  It cannot be physical - he has the ideal physique  for a scrummie.     U think je needs specialist coaching and advice and things would improve.

Mozart

And you are an honest grader?   What bullshit.   I looked at the performance of Alberts and found that he did the absolute minimum.   How many times were "Alberts ...  the main counter to the Bulls mauling tactics"?   I counted twice - once where he brought the maul down and was penalized and one other time - during mauls Alberts did not join the mauls on at least two other occasions or was pushed out of the way early.   

How did I arrive at the score of 2?  

     Five ball carries    -  5 points

     Four tackles made -  4 points   - 9 points

     Minus

     Two  penalties    -     4 points

     Two missed tackles - 4 points    - 8 points

     Plus

     Tight play assists    -  1 Point     - 1 point

I was not honest in allocation.   How about Foxsport who gave him minus 7 points for his performance?  

He had to play really tight - so that allows him to do zilch in line outs?  Boy - o -boy - another explanation similar to the De Jongh's missed tackle ratio of 23,3% - he missed the tackles because he is such a strong tackler.  Alberts did squat of value - because he was so involved in tight play.

Sure - he will do better in other games - he certainly cannot do worse.   His Super 15 performances last year were poor - though I must admit - better than he achieved yesterday.    Problem is Alberts have a low work rate - and that never improves  ever,

I would be interested to see how he performs against the Hurricanes - they have a weaker tight 5 and he will not be required to be the "main counter to the opposition's mauling tactics"    

Sasue

Your memory must have slipped badly, Jprdaan actually was very good for the Sharks in 2012 - he was one of the most promising youngsters in that year - but he slipped back badly last year.   I can give you numerous examples of 2012 performances of top value.  Yeterday was back to the standard he set in 2012 - so lets see how he profresses against the Hurricanes next Round

Alberts never was a satisfactory Super 15 performer - I think the game is too fast for him.  He always was a low work rate player - and that would be difficult to change.  I am not sure whether White would pit up with that for too long.   Repetition of yesterdays performance will not be tolerated by White - I am sure.

Mozart

I gave a full explanation of how I calculated the points.   I just mentioned the fantasy points as an aside - to further support my argument that Alberts produced a BS performance.   If you think he was any better - good luck to you - but I am sure he was not.   

 Saffex

Engelvrecht was average and the ratings indicated as such.  He did get the ball five times - passed it once and made no real progress with ball in hand.   Did not beat a single defender and was tackled every tine by the first defender he came up against.  he tried to beat Steyn by running around him - but in the process got tackled by Hordaan - so no defenders beaten,

On what else would you base a rating? 

Elsewhere I said the Bulls half backs were pathetic and you can understand that their centers did not function properly - but one cannot give points based on maybe and ifs and buts.  

How would you rate Engelbrecht and Serfontein on their performances yesterday?   I asked for comments and suggestions - but no one else gave any - mostly agreeing with my allocation - bar for Mozart iro Alberts and now you on Engelbrecht.     Positive and motivated comments will help - not the airy fairy excuses of Mozart.

 Saffex

But he has to get a rating - he did well on defence - so what rating would you give him?   Maybe 5,5/10?

OK

I will make him a 6  - based on his solid defence.