SA team of the week : Round 14

Taking into account the performance of all teams who played this weekend - my selection would be as follows:-

15   Viljoen - bubbling under Danillier

14   Benjamin - bubbling under Grey

13   De Villiers - bubblng under Sadie

12   De Allende - bubbling under Ebersohn

11   Le Roux - bubbling under Habana

10   Watts - bubbling under Jantjies

  9   Van Zyl - bubbling under Schreuder

  8   Van der Walt - bubbling under Du Preez

  7   Labuschagne - bubbling under Armand 

  6   Brussow - bubbling under Coetzee

  5   Etzebeth - bubbling under Bulbring

  4   Du Toit - bubbling under De Jager

  3  Adriaanse - bubbling under Du Plessis

  2  Strauss - bubbling under Liebenberg

  1  Beast -  bubbling under Oosthuizen

Notice how many of Meyer's training group is not on the list above?   Most were not even worthy of consideration in fourth position on the above list.   Come from selecting players who are not worth selecting because of poor form.

Nine Cheetahs....just because they beat the Mighty Kings....what a joke.

Mozart

There are nine Cheetah players on the list because they played better rugby than the rest.   Now let us really get a joke from you and i would love to laugh when I see your list of performers.   Come on - I am looking forward to see what you come up with. 

Oom Maaik I bet that surprised even you.....what a dumb team.

Nine Cheetahs.....they beat the Kings

Three Sharks....they lost to the Bools.

No Bools who beat the Sharks

And three Stormers after they beat the team that your Fox Sport was predicting would win by 12.

What a total laugh.

Mozart

I just had a look at the Foxsport dream team of the week for all the teams in Super 16 and they have FOUR CHEETAH PLAYERS players in that team.   The four players are -

*   Coenie Oosthuizen

*   Lappies Labuschagne

*   Johan Sadie and

*   Willie le Roux

Labuschagne is still the highest rated loosie in Super 15 as a whole. 

Why do you think it is a joke when I say nine of the highest rated SA players this week are from the Cheetahs?

Still no names from the joker Mozart - just another offering to side-track the issue.  At least I put names on the list - why don't you?

Wow Maaik you missed two, you could have had Sadie in there for Jean and Coenie for the Beast who destroyed the Bools scrum. Eleven Cheetahs.....how poor were Ebersohn, Daniller, Uys and de Jager not to have made the team.

This Fox Sport stuff is mindless.....no depth, no complexity, no degree of difficulty ....the obvious, just like you!

Mozart

I did the list long before I had a look at Foxsport.   Anyway you normally past enough stats from ESPN on this site - that is if it fits your argument - and the only difference is that Foxsport allocate points to various activities on the field of play as given by ESPN.

Now stop being idiotic and supply alternative names if you can. 

Not my thing....but here's a clue. The games played to the highest standard were the Bool/Sharks game....and the Stormers game. The Kings were by far the weakest team of the weekend. So I would expect probably 12 players to come from the Bools/Sharks/Stormers.....and at best 3 from the Cheetahs. Those 3 would have been Le Roux, Strauss and Brussouw. Fill in the rest as you see fit.

Mozart

You really can't be serious in your statement as made above.   Last week the weak Kings team beat the Highlanders - the team who beat the Sharks a few weeks ago.   Last week the Cheetahs played the fool with the Reds - a team whom the Stormers struggled badly against winning by 1 point.    Granted the Kings are a weak team and somewhat inconsistent - after all they beat the Rebels - whom the Stormers LOST against, but that is not the issue  here.  

What is important further is tha fact that the highest standard of rugby was NOT PLAYED in the Bulls-Sharks game - unless you think that constant penalties and poor ball handling is the highest standard of Rugby.  

Now for the final nail - I gave the stats for the Cheetahs loosies elsewhere and it shows something up badly and that is your prejudice against certtain players.   If you look at the stats - why should a player like Alberts be selected before for instance Labuschagne?   And why should preference be given to Brussow only - even though he was statsitically the weakest of the three Cheetahs loosies.

But then the above relates to stats - and that is the real problem of yours - whe n to use stats and when to ignore them.  

For the conclusions from a set of statistics to be valid....they have to be applied to a nearly identical experiment. Test rugby is a totally different animal from Super 15.  That's why the stats for Labuschagne can safely be ignored. Like Daniel, like Coetzee, like Potgieter, like Botes, like Stegman,like Kankowski,  yea like Watson.....all of whom were standout players in the S15 loosie stakes...Labuschagne would simply be overpowered at test level. So I don't bother with those stats, which aren't so much statistics, as raw data.

Mozart

You make deductions without fact - and must be the only person who can write crap without facts.   What makes you so certain - Labuschagne - rated highly by all the opposing teams and by the coaches - "will be overpowered in tests".   By whom will he be over-powered - he played against most of the posible competitors already - and there was no sign of that.

You are foolish in making unfounded statements that you cannot prove by fact.   So back to the old Mozart method - ignore facts when it does not suit your arguments and use them if they do.   That is the  basis on which you always argue and that makes your arguments an extreme joke.   Let me give you an example of complete collapse based on stats.   Despite all the negative signs in the stats - you safely ignore them in the De Jongh selection for the EOYT.   After all De Jongh was a Springbok in the past - so his stats could be ignored.   That was followed by the test in Scotland - no show and Mozart tried to create an impression of effectiveness by using the stats that time.   Then followed a virtually  total absence from the test in Twickenham - those stats are on the to be  ignored list.   Then in Super 15 - his defence collapsed in a heap - so those stats are to be on the to be ignored list.

You started off in similar vein iro of  Etzebeth - selected because of the performances in Super 15 - basically his stats could safely be ignored on the Mozart basis.   In June last year - he was below par in the English tests last year according to you - that gradally changed and now he is a super-hero.   Unlike you - I never criticized Etzebeth.  

You started off with statements like he was tossed around like a rag doll about Du Toit and lately became less critical of him - almost to a point of acceptance that he will ultimately make the test team.   He outplayed Kruger yesterday - but that is to be ignored  - because Kruger is a Sprringbok and can make line calls.

Then your devotion to Alberts - he played in two games this year in Super 15 and put in atrocious performances - so ignore the stats for those games - and also ignore the stats of the tests last year - because in your mind he is a strong ball carrier  and made some big hits.   The stats says he made minimal ground with his strong ball carries and he missed more than enough tackles - so ignore them.

I think your observations on player performances should be ignored completely because of bias and perceptions of years ago  that must still be left unchallenged.   A player who performed reasonably well in 2010 may not perform on an equal basis in 2013 - but that is to be ignored.    

Tims change - but not according to Mozart.   Just one thing - you are a top businessman - will you handle business matters on a similar basis to what you handle the rugby players?   I doubt it very - very much  

 Some ludicrous seelction

Grey - that frot little queens wing. The mind boggles. What actually did benjamin do?

Adriaanse!!! Please 

Brussouw 10 tackles and two steals in 80 minutes. No thanks

Watts  another mond boggling selection. 

Meyer should give some players like Labuscagne a go against the Scots etc. He is far more industrious than Alberts for sure. If he is phsically up to to great. Arno Botha should be palyed at 8. Etzebeth and Du Toit.

Try this pack:

Coenie (beast scrummed well but had minimal effect outside scrum), Strauss/Bissie,  Malherbe

Etzebeth, Du Toit

Louw, Arno and Labuschagne (7).

That gentlemen is a very nicely balanced pack of fowards. Very mobile and yet enough physicality. Needs to be tried out.

Then go for a young backline (You can have the senior players on the bench)

Van Zyl/reinach Lambie/Cat Mvovo, Van Der Heever,  Allende/ Jan Serfontien, JJ, Willie le Roux.

Give these guys some test experience and see how they react.

Lord Beeno

You seem to have a better understanding of rugby than Beeno.   So let me explain.   Now let me explain - all no 14 wings of SA teams in Round 14 was crap - so you can include anyone in that position.   I merely picked the two that made less bugger-ups than the others did.   Test material none of them are - so lets leave it at that.

The same applies to the no 3 props - of all of them Adriaanse showed up best statistically wise - that does not mean he is test material either - but there was no real competition in this case.   Maybe - by a stretch of imagination we can consider Jannie Du Pessis in that case - but that is a big maybe.    

Now lets look at your proposals for the tests coming up in June.   I agree with most of your suggestions - but not with a few and wish to make the following observations:-

*   Unfortunately Malherbe is injured and he will not be available for the June tests - so they need to find a number 3 prop.  They may go with Oosthuizen in that position - the alternative is Jannie Du Plessis  but he was largely crap this year.   Not much else available.

*   No problem with your lock and loosie suggestion.   Vermeulen is injured and Spies is crap.

*   I agree with your scrummies - but Reinach is unfortunately injured snd nobody seems to be sure when he will be back.

*    In essence I agree with your backline - but I think we need a senior player in the mix somehow and a place for De Villiers is essential.   I think Serfontein will not be available due to Under 20 WC obligation and that leaves a choice of centers  between De Villiers, De Allende and Engelbrecht.   I think Habana would be selected - but I like the wings.   I may however, play Habana and Engelbrecht on the wing and use the Stormers mid-field combination of yesteray at center.

*    To my mind Le Roux is a must at full back.

Unlike in the Murrayfield tests which we barely won - our backline was atrocious and the props was an insult to logic.   The above team will be better and beat Scotland ten times better than the way Tonga beat them a weak after our Murryfield debacle.

Meyer - however - will never do what is suggested and will insist on playing the useless formless lot - so I think both of us are really not realistic.   Meyer just love the dolts - epecially if they have Blue Bull contracts.   I believe the final squad for the June tests  is going to be announced next Saturday and we can then enjoy the funny side of his selections methodology farce afterwards.  

Habana was superb yesterday. He had a very difficult part to play in the try....he took the ball off the Reds on a kickoff.....made all 8 of his tackles, including a crucial one on Cooper. Oom Maaik you really miss a lot.

As for your communication, keep it brief, would be my advice. 

Mozart

I never said anything about Habana yesterday - did I?  I also said he should be selected and I missed nothing about him in yesterdays game.  I said on the team of the week issue - he was bubbling under and that was the real situation as well.

However, the rest of my comments were spot on and hit a soft spot.  However, congrats on your using of stats in the Habana case - I appreciate that one.