STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
10 Feb 2014, 14:35#42
I said quick off the mark, not faster. And JJ was not good distibuting.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
10 Feb 2014, 16:35#45
Then why would he award him a central Bok contract?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Feb 2014, 16:51#46
Why didn't he start him against France, Scotland and Wales....he is probably hoping he will improve his unfortunate tackling.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Feb 2014, 19:35#48
JJ is a robot....that's what everybody is missing. Do robots ever really succeed. I can't think of one. Modern defences are breached first in the mind.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
10 Feb 2014, 23:17#49
He did not start him as he wanted to see what Fourie had to offer given Fourie's availability was only for the EOYT.......if he wanted JJ's defence to improve then he would have wanted Jean's to improve even more, given that in the last 4 tests JJ and Jean played together against Oz and NZ.......JJ's defensive record was better than Jean's and thats a fact you cant hide from.
JJ a robot......wow if he is a robot, I'd hate to know what the hell the likes of Fourie and Jean are.......JJ has far more attacking clout than these two...........JJ has pace and feet.......Jean and Fourie have neither........they run good lines and have good physicality.........that is robotic
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
11 Feb 2014, 00:15#52
Oh boy, so all those times JJ put Jean, Kirchner and Willie into space was not vision?
For a start, your 13 is a finisher, not a creator.......he is not there to be slight of hand or looking to ignite his outside backs through vision and creativity.......he is there to run off the creativity of his 12, there to take the attack to the next level in terms of speed and to feed his wings or fullback running a great line.
Take JJ's beating of Savea on the outside.......it was classic and with that he linked perfectly with Willie, by drawing the defender and executing a perfect pint point long pass off his wrong had to Willie........that is vision.......much like his setting up of Kirchner for his try against Oz.
All these takes on JJ are simply not true.......he has all the software and hardware to make the perfect 13.......a finisher with great pace and feet and more than handy enough hands.
Jean is quick enough, but nothing special.......JJ would leave him in the dust
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Feb 2014, 01:08#53
Dave you really have to find a second example...the accidental dummy he sold Savea (nobody was more surprised than JJ) has outlived it's usefulness.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
11 Feb 2014, 01:14#54
Ah yeah accidental dummy wa s it? Let me guess, had Jean thrown the dummy it would have been classical.......you are an open book Moz.........that Savea beat showcased the beauty in JJ and you are still smarting so many months later.........prior to that, you told me JJ only had an inside step and bang came the classic Savea beating........accidental dummy.......I have heard it all......I'm guessing his stepping of Cruden was a trip and his running through Conrad Smith was a tumble?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Feb 2014, 03:09#56
Duplicate....now there's an understatement.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Feb 2014, 06:44#58
I agree Kirchner and Coetzee are also process players. Labuschagne is much more creative, but unfortunately doesn't have the horsepower for test rugby....he would be dominated in the collisions.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
11 Feb 2014, 14:04#60
Labascagne at 107kg's these days should be fine physically at the highest level
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
11 Feb 2014, 18:23#62
Michael, your question is redundant. So I should imagine you'll be waiting some time yet!
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
11 Feb 2014, 19:31#64
"Mozart is too involved in his own dreams to give an honest answer."
Pot; Kettle; Black.
Michael plummeting through the sky, but clinging for dear life to the rock of fact. Too bad then that the rock is in fact his head. But it's 'ayt G; in the end the statistic will bare out he made a landing.
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
11 Feb 2014, 19:48#66
Michael, my only dilemma is that you are too ignorant to understand how throroughly exposed your lies are. You have been routed, dismantled, sacked. Master Tzu has smote you like the ant under hammer.
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
12 Feb 2014, 12:37#68
Worry not for me, you have enough trouble on your hands helping yourself. Brutally exposed!
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
12 Feb 2014, 13:00#70
Michael, I have let the video do the talking. No hiding behind numbers, none of the usual deceit; just plain as day video footage. You on the other hand stubbornly refuse to accept the truth, and in so doing, resort to the most absurd nonsense to justify yourself. You claimed Morné lost the Ellis Park test and were proven a liar. You claimed that Morné gets targeted and were proven a liar. You claimed Morné cannot tackle and were proven a liar. Everything that comes out of your mouth has either been a lie or complete nonsense.
"You cannot identify his weaknesses because you absolutely refuse to look
at his performances objectively - and you ascribe qualities to him that
he has never shown."
Really? Well, nothing you claim has been a weakness. I merely state he can defend well enough on his own and can make decisions. All of these have been proven to be true.
"That is what bothers his Club as well - they thought they were getting a
better product when they signed that contract with them. The problem
is their agent has listened to the hype and like you and others ignored
the performances and now Stade Francais has a flyhalf at high cost that
they perforce have to use as a bench player."
Who are you to speak on behalf of an entire organization that does not include you? Provide evidence. But then all of what I have seen regarding your Stade assessment has been wrong or a lie anyway, so I won't hold my breath for a credible retort.
"Is a Club bench player good enough to be an international flyhalf? That
is the key question and only the really ignorant will answer yes to
that question."
More snaking around the issue. Nobody stated that a player with an aptitude only for club rugby should be played at test level given a better alternative is available. Morné has an aptitude for test level, and secondly there isn't a better alternative.
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
12 Feb 2014, 13:17#72
Wrong again goof! You neglect to review the footage with any degree of honesty. You refuse to acknowledge that Smith was Morné's man, you refuse to acknowledge the pod of forwards that he had to watch for, you refuse to acknowledge that Beauden ran away from Morné and into JJ. You simply haven't a clue or are a desperate liar. The footage of his other defensive moments you also portray incorrectly. You throw stats around saying he missed tackles, but you neglect to acknowledge the footage where he was ran at only twice and made all of those tackles. The others were either chase downs in a clean up job or covering for others. All of his misses were chasing no hope tackles from behind, but two of those chases directly prevented certain tries. You dislike the footage for that reason, it damages your argument. Severely!
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
13 Feb 2014, 16:02#75
Vlag, you going for that bump sums up what I mean about you as a person
CWcwvdmerwe
Rookie50 posts
13 Feb 2014, 16:52#76
Ja, jy's 'n wrede sadis, wat hule herinner aan hoe dom hulle is!
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
13 Feb 2014, 16:56#77
Dutchie your obsession with me is becoming a little concerning......stop yapping at my heels like a little bitch......get a life and maybe start by trying to contribute something meaningful on this site.........well, maybe that is a bit of a stretch??
13 Feb 2014, 17:19#80
There is nothing more to answer. Your arguments have been dealt with quite comprehensively. I only bumped this thread to see if you would respond to Sun Tzu's last reply and I was not disappointed in yet another laughable, nothing reply. Only difference is that this time around it contained a few funny balls-ups as well. That was that for my daily laugh. Thanks.