Selection of team to play on Saturday against Argentina

According to newspaper reports Erasmus is likely to field the strongest potential team against Argentina.  That being the case there are various positions where the selection is absolutely certain and there are positions where t is not so clear.

Lets look at the not so clear situation first.  Many site "experts" and others wants Mtawarira and Nyakane to start in the test  - but Erasmus may still retain them on the bench.  The two players were extremely effective when coming from the bench against the AB bench - but how effective will they be when starting?   Unlike our local "experts" Erasmus will look at the situation objectively and may yet decide to keep the situation as was the case against the All Blacks.

In both the Australian and AB games there were line-out problems.   In the case of the Aussie test De Jager fumbled  two ball catches in the air, but he was never outjumped.   On the other hand Mostert was clearly out-jumped when losing a line-out on SA throw-in.  Our "experts" hammered De Jager for the losses in possession - but never said a word about the line-out loss caused by Mostert.

As to other aspects of play - Mostert was praised to high heaven for being very active in the AB game - whiole De jager is derided for being inactive with weak upper body strength.   So lets look at the stats for the to matches and see how the level of activity is proven:-

Mostert

De Jager

Fact is one can only wonder how Mostert was active and De Jager is not when in the two games -

*   De Jager made 4 more tackles than Mostert did even though he was subbed and Mostert was not;

*   De Jager took 6 line-outs balls as against the 2 of Mostert

*   Both were not good in ball carries - De Jager averaged 0,6 meters per carry - Mostert average 0,56.

*   Mostert handle the ball 11 times and past the ball twice against the 8 balls handled by De jager - passing the ablls twice.

*   De jager scored a try - which our "experts" discounted.

It was clear that the line-out problems against the All Blacks were due to the physical deficiency of Mostert as a lock. he is just not physically strong enough to compete  in the Tight 5 an it does affect the game - since corner kicks from penalties are never successful when it involves Mostert

I have a feeling that Erasmus may pick De Jager to start against Argentina and for very good reasons.           

I haven't seen anyone say Fräulein Baumstamm was weak in the upper body. However, I did say that he is very slow limbed, lacks mobility, slow mental process and has a limited tackle radius. Look at his attempted tackle on Isi. 

Mauling Mostert should be at 7, with RG at 5. This is our most potent setup. Mostert is a very good Bok. A player of substance. 

Why should Mostert be at 7 when he failed in that position when tried out by the Lions.   And you did refer to all kind of BS about De Jager.   Upper body weakness is one of your stock phrases - any player you dislike has been linked to that phrase in the past.

So why was De Jager's stats for the Aussie game better than Mostert's  in the AB game?  What  went wrong in the line-outs against the AB's?  Who is to blame?  I think the real problem was Mostert in the line-outs.   He is physically not strong enough to compete in the tight 5

By the way RG is also somebody that lacks some real thinking ability    He also lost a line-out, but at least compensated for that by taking 2 line-outs himself and make a line-out steal.  However, in the tests he did play in he had discipline problems and the penalty he gave away was ranked stupidity that could easily have let to a card against him.  

We are fortunate that Erasmus look at all aspects of performance and is not influenced by "expert' prejudice on site, and we will see tomorrow what he comes. 

It was clear that the line-out problems against the All Blacks were due to the physical deficiency of Mostert as a lock.

Oh? Here are all the Bok lineouts plus steals. One clear win against the throw by Retallick in the very first lineout is the only straight competitive loss we suffered all game. There were two overthrows, one of which we managed to recover. For the rest we won all our lineouts and stole two. So kindly point out which of our "line-out problems" were due to the "physical deficiency of Mostert as a lock".

Simply answer the question: how did Mostert's "physical deficiency" contribute to any lineout woes?

Two things - Mostert did miss a line -out throw-in when outjumped by Retallick -

Yes, as I noted with Bok Lineout 1.

he made no line-out turnover in possession - Etzebeth did.

Yes, as I noted with Bok Steal 1.

Blaas my siel  - he could not see the instability in the Springbok line-out.   Whenever the Springboks has a throw-in the hustle and bustle in the line-outs happened and  as a result the balls that went back to them in the line-outs were frequently of poor quality.  

That is why Mostert only called three line-outs to himself - the first one of which one of which he fouled up badly.   

Whenever the Springboks has a throw-in the hustle and bustle in the line-outs happened and  as a result the balls that went back to them in the line-outs were frequently of poor quality. 

8:05 clean take into the maul
17:49 clean take, immediate possession for scrumhalf
31:43 clean take, secure possession
50:39 slight fumble Snyman, but cleanly presented to scrumhalf

Where is the poor quality possession in the lineouts where there were proper throws? The shambles were in the two overthrows at 04:50 and 70:17. How is Mostert's "physical deficiency" responsible for balls thrown at an unreachable height by the hooker?

I ask again: how did Mostert's "physical deficiency" contribute to any lineout woes?

Pakie has no mercy! This thread summed up: 

So you cannot back up your claim. Thank you, that will be all.

The newspapers and commentators saw what happened in line-outs and so it is not my claim - but also of the commentators and journo's.  Matfield  and Mallett also mentioned the problem in commentating on the issue 

So as per normal your ostrich head in the sand tactic is NOT working.    

It is obvious there were lineout problems evidenced by the two overthrows and the early loss aided by another tentative throw. I am not disputing that.

I am disputing your unique claim, which you cannot back up with a single shred of visible evidence. Here it is again:

It was clear that the line-out problems against the All Blacks were due to the physical deficiency of Mostert as a lock.

You've danced around the issue for 4 responses now like the pro dancer that you are.

In other words, you got nothing.

Over and out.

So when Mostert is around mauls from lineouts are virtually neutralized.   he cannot stand any pressure when the maul is to be formed around the catcher and the catcher has to direct and co-ordinate the maul.    Mostert was patently unable to p lay a role in that aspect of the game.  

You tried to prove that the maul in that test against France was organized by Mostert - it was not and the real forward move followed when Du Toit took over the organization part with the help of Vermeulen.  Mostert's role in that line-out was to catch the ball after which the maul floundered and Du Toit followed by Vermeulen took over the control of the maul.      

There were 7 lone-out throw-ins by the Springboks - thanks for dealing with the 4 you mentioned.

Here is your claim:

as a result the balls that went back to them in the line-outs were frequently of poor quality. 

I therefore dealt with the 4 lineouts where we won the ball in the lineout, because, see, we can't talk about the ball that went back to us in the lineout if we didn't win the ball in that lineout. Because if we lose the lineout, the ball doesn't come back to us, right? So why would we discuss a lost lineout or overthrown lineouts when we are attempting to illustrate the quality of lineout possession we received? Are you keeping up? Too complicated?

I see now you have shifted from Mostert's lineout work to his maul contribution. And so you will keep moving away from the original claim, obfuscating, diverting. I wish you'd stop being a politician on this board and start being a rugby fan, Mike.

Lügnerin, why do you do this to yourself. If you cannot juggle two balls, don't add more. The French test was a bit of a gaff on your part. Shall I post the link to remind everyone of said gaff? 

Yes so said the three most biased know-nothings on site,. What a farc they make of fctual distortions.