You left out quite a few that did not perform well enough. Those included -
Francois Louw, Siya Kolisi, Jantjies -(in all matches he started in), Esterhuizen (deficient defense), and.Robert du Preez.
Your rating is total BS as per normal.
Shezza
There were very good reasons why some players ended up on the bench and some never did anything in advancing their own performances/
I always said we need a better player at 12 - but always questioned who should replace him. A number of names came up, but there were even worse deficiencies with them than there was with De Allende. The problem remains - who would be a better 12 I think that there are a number of players who may be - but Eserhuizen will have to up his game in a major way to become the alternative.
While members praise some players and Mozart and co demonize others - there are some players who may not be back next year. F Louw is probably top of that list - but I think Mostert may also be out. He is not going to be contention unless some injuries keep players out. He is too physically-deficient as a lock and have failed as a 7 when the Lions used him in that position. And unless showed better performances in Super Rugby - even his good performances in the first two tests in June - will not be enough to get him selected next year, because he failed badly subsequently in the EOYT's
I hope Erasmus find a solution at 12 and in the loosie sel ection - so lets hope the Super Rugby indicates a way out.
Damian is the worst Bo k 12 I've ever seen. The most technically flawed centre I have seen.
Who said he saved the French test? Making turnovers does not necessarily mean that he saved the test - there are many ways where tries would not have been scored. For instance in the Wellongton test Louw f#cked up royally and a try was NOT scored.
In any event who won the match for the Springboks in the French game - was it not the possession turnover by De Allende which actually resulted in the Pollard try? Yoy say De Allende was poor all series long - yet Louw was even worse in all matches played than De Allende, but Louw is saved from criticism and not De Allende.
Sad really and AO - the most flawed center ever was FATSO - no expert coach ever said De Allende was not a center at all. Your rugby illiteracy is screaming to high heaven.
Sorry - it was against Scotland that it happened. In any event against the AB's Louw f#cked up royally - yet the NZ team with 5 meters out did not score a try despite Louw;s foul-up. So why should it have happened that the French would have scored a try if Louw did not make the turnovers.
It is merely one of your wildly erratic imaginations. Louw was poor in all games he played in. Remember the time I asked you why Louw not even attempted a tackle on Sanchez when the latter scored in the RC test and reminded you about how for three years you attacked Du Toit for a similar reason and you denied that the case was similar - because Louw was guarding another Argentine player - which was exactly similar to what Du Toit was doing in the English test.
Your assessments are not on performance on player - but on personal prejudice - which makes your assessments as near as possible to being worthless. .
.
So why should it have happened that the French would have scored a try if Louw did not make the turnovers.
They didn't have to score a try. They only had to keep possession of the ball for two or three more phases to win the game.
Vermeulen disappointment me greatly in the end.
He showed some form of old in the first match against the pathetic Poms ... but that took it's toll on the man and drained him badly for the remaining 2 "tests".
He wasn't able to recover his strength in time ... as we saw near the end of the 2nd and his lackluster showing in the 3rd.
It's no wonder he fled to Japan ... especially when he knew that he had to face the All Backs ... for that matter the Ozzies and Pumas too, who have vastly superior sides to what the Poms sent our way.
It really is a shame what old age does to the body ... attaining fitness levels takes longer ... stamina recovery ... shedding body fatigue ... etc ...
We need an 8th man desperately ... Vermeulen is not it and I don't think Whiteley is the answer either.
De Allende has never been up to the task as a test 12 ... and what I find worrying is that Rassie still doesn't know this ... our supposed rugby genius just can't seem to see how poor De Allende actually is.
Now there's talk of taking our best 10 in years and shifting him to 12 ... total madness.
Kriel isn't much better and Esterhuizer is about as poor as they get.
We need a completely new midfield and that includes it's cover on the bench.
Our loosies are a mess ... the only one who's put his hand up, just so happens to be our best forward ... our best rugby player ... and he's been selected out of position. Are there any better candidates for the 7 jersey? I don't think so. Rassie has no choice but to continue with Du Toit at 7 ... which isn't exactly that bad an option, as class players like Snyman, Lood, Mostert, Schickerling and Etzebeth can duke it out for the 4 spots available at lock in the WC squad.
My guess is that Schickerling could force his way into the squad at the expense of Mostert.
A few other passengers that need to be done away with are ... our openside flank and captain ... Jantjies ... Bongi ... Beast ... and the useless Am.
We need to bring guys like Willemse into the mix ... as a replacement for the over rated Willie.
Also ... our bench needs to be revamped ... turned into a weapon ... not a place to hide our useless and unwanted players on.
How we're going to do this with the quota requirements of 5 blacks in the starting 15, as well as 3 coloureds, 2 Chinese and 1 Greek is beyond me.
We'll be lucky to make the playoffs.
CC
I said we cannot afford players way pas their best and Louw is one of those. I think that Vermeulen is not producing what he should. Lets face it Vermeulen in all his tests made 33 tckles - missing 9. In his opening two tests against England this year he made 11 tackles missing 2 and those were his best two matches this year,
We really cannot afford a no8 loosie with that kind of defense, And he is Mozart and co favourite loosie. They want Du Toit out because as a player he cannot play more than 20 minutes in a game and that says it all.
I would look at replacing De Allende with Willemse. The latter was attacked all out by Mozart because he was not far back enough to cover that penalty by Mo-umga. When questioned whether Le Roux would have been looking at his own style of play, Mozart's imagination ran wild. Total BS. I would however, differ from you I would rather see Wilemse at 10 or 12 where he had plenty of game time in the past. So let Pollard stay at 10 and play Willemse at 12.
I hope we see much more of Visser and Muller du Plessis as potential centers in future. They show they have what is needed in the backline when playing in the sevens as to both attack and defense ,
As to the locks you are probably correct - although we should keep Du Toit at 7. I would have De Jager, Schickerling and Etzebeth as locks - we need muscle in the Tight 5, not light weights like Mostert.
As to the loosies - we need two top class performers that can make up at least partly for the deficient Kolisi. Louw and Vermeulen is NOT the answer. They should have a player like Kriel on the bench to replace Kolisi in the second half.
Physicality without ball sense makes for poor players at center . We have had a long list of those starting off with Fat Fransie and ending with De Allende and Esterhuizen. I would rather start looking for thinking players than that lot..
Physicality without ball sense makes for poor players at center . We have had a long list of those starting off with Fat Fransie and ending with De Allende and Esterhuizen. I would rather start looking for thinking players than that lot..
Allende is not as bad as some oaks make out. The real problem is that the Bok backline as a whole need more skills and creativity. You can keep changing personnel and miss the key problem - the need for top flight backline coaches in SA.
Mozart
Wonderful the idiocy of it all/ The problem ii that As an 8 Vermeulen covers some kicked balls and carry them for about 4 to 5 meters and is then tackled by the first defender, The effect of these carries are really worthless since it does not lead to anything positive in the game ather than a breakdown ball which other players must protect,
What bothers is not his ineffective ball carries - it is his serious deficiency in defense - his tackle stats are really shockingly poor or a loosie. 33 tackles made in 7 games and 9 missed tackles in 7 tests is totally unacceptable, If any other player comes up with those stats you would attack him for years to come - we will not hear the end ever, but in the case of Vermeulen is it ignored. Why?
Same as in the case of Fat Fransie - you do not provide the stats on Vermeulen - when I comes to tackles and missed tackles as well as ball losses, tackles and missed tackles. Strop using stats selectively so as to mislead the site - if you use stats to prove anything - provide the full stats - not selected stats only.
I asked about Vermeulen and Fatso- not what other players produced - dismal failure in dealing wit the stats as per normal.
I can quote two Champions Cup games where Coetzee and Louw played at 8. Coetzee in the game made 21 tackles missing 1 and Louw came a distance behind him making 13 tackles and mssising none.
So it is not impossible for a number 8 to make tackles and selective stats to prove otherwise mean nothing.
No Mozart
It I were you without a pre-primary school grasp about Rugby issues.
But let us first get to the factual situation as to tackles made by Vermeulen, I have rechecked the stats and found that -
* lost ball possession 5 times;
* made 43 tackles; and
* missed 7 tackles
That means he made on average just about 6 tackles per game played. For a player making such a limited number of tackles his MTR is on the high side.
Now lets get back to a phrase you invented to cover for too low a tackle count by your favoured players, -namely "process" tackles. You were asked and tried to explain the difference between "tackles" and "process tackles" before and what you came up was absolute BS. When you use that phrase all that any sensible person can do is the marvel at your BS and laugh for half and hour.
No Mozart - your explanation is total BS. When the opposition has ball possession they have insofar as ball carries are concerned two options - they can attack in the channel or they can spread balls wider. Loosies must be able to deal with both. That is where Vermeulen's problem comes in. He can make tackles in the channel - but wider out it is impossible for him to play a role - he is too pace-deficient to do that. That will always limit his tackle count.
The other story about "turnover option" is also inexplicable nonsense. If it was factual the question arises how come he made virtually no turnovers at breakdowns? As far as I could make out Du Toit made more turnovers than Vermeulen and Louw combined made in tests this year
So Mozart - try again - your above posting is so denuded of fact it is ridiculous. . .
The Mozart classic "wooosh" when he is completely trumped and cannot fin d a way out of the hole he dug for himself.
No wonder you are too ignorant to discuss rugby issues without getting personal shows you are in your own wo rds "colossally stupid".
No wonder you are too ignorant to discuss rugby issues without getting personal shows you are in your own wo rds "colossally stupid".
Mozart
No bother about 1 tackle difference - what is important is that you talk absolute crap anyway. I indicated in some detail that there is enough evidence to suggest why Vermeulen has such a low tackle count and all you can come up is your normal sick BS.
And then there is that BS of "process tackles". Do you realize how foolish that statement is - since it is just a means to criticize better defenders and defend insufficient defenders based entirely on prejudice against some players.
Then another statement by your equal ibn rugby stupidity is always expected - whatever BS you come up he will support,
Mozart
No bother about 1 tackle difference - what is important is that you talk absolute crap anyway. I indicated in some detail that there is enough evidence to suggest why Vermeulen has such a low tackle count and all you can come up is your normal sick BS.
And then there is that BS of "process tackles". Do you realize how foolish that statement is - since it is just a means to criticize better defenders and defend insufficient defenders based entirely on prejudice against some players.
Then another statement by your equal ibn rugby stupidity is always expected - whatever BS you come up he will support,
Listen di m c u n t - you were forced to post the stats and then ends up not understanding why Vermeulen have such a comparatively low tackle count.
Agreed, it's very tedious.
No Mozart
You started it and now you complain about what I wrote. Just see what you wrote in the posting preceding the one I responded to,
Anyway I know that it does not help to discuss and mention the problems attached to Vermeulen at present because the dolts (you and brain-deficient AO) do not understand rugby at all.
I may call you those insults because you thoroughly deserve them. by your postings that includes total misrepresentation and even downright total delusion. However, I have not gone to the low level of discussion you managed above.
You are a total disaster because you fail to accept reality and attack a player like Du Toit endlessly with the most prejudiced BS only you can discover and then state as facts. The latest BS is so-called "process tackles" and "process carries" - the first one of which you used to disparage players you dislike and hide the deficiencies of your favourites. Then there is the joke of the posting you made stating that Du Toit was moved to no7 because he was inadequate as a lock. There is no proof that anything you write about your pet hate players and the praise songs with very little foundation you wrote about your favourite has-beens are based on actual facts. You have no idea how poor your intribution is and every question about the stuff you write is either ignored instead of providing proof that your statements you made are correct, or is turned into a low life statement you made above.
And then we have the idiotic AO supporting you all the time. The joke of the year!!!! .
