You need to LOG IN to reply.

Shark Scrum

Forum » Rugby » Shark Scrum

Mar 10, 2019, 05:12

With all the talk of the front rows, I'd like to highlight the men driving behind the front rowers. I noticed the difference in leverage between the two sides throughout the game, with the Shark flanks looking particularly sloppy. As we can see in the pic below, the Bulls drive lower and power strongly and tightly behind the legs of the props and hooker and drive forward and upwards into the backsides of the front rowers (careful you don't faint Lügnerin). Note the neutral spines and binding. In so many ways, the sharks seem to be failing in the basics. Such a pity as they have a lot of power up front. 

Mar 10, 2019, 08:17

Silly Billy

Lets get it straight - it is a fact that both Beast and Oosthuizen are not up to standard anymore/  The answer is lack of support by the locks is another problem - but the Sharks locks are doing the same in scrums that Matfield did in 2014 and 2015 -  holidaying in scrums.   

The Sharks were lucky yesterday - the Bulls did miss De Jager badly.   With him around the forward display would be even more uneven than it was yesterday,       

Mar 10, 2019, 08:38

Beast has been a quota for a number of years now. To think we have support for this heart palpitating hasbeen as the starting Bok loosehead.

Coenie has never been a tighthead. He's not even a very good loosehead. He only contributes in the tight loose by throwing his massive weight around.

Simply useless.

Mar 10, 2019, 11:17

Mike, the locks do not apply a literal straight forward thrust behind the props. The flank and locks are two parts of the drive. If the flanks are not binding properly or driving behind, the props are at a disadvantage. Here, the Bulls have a better bind between the locks and flanks and they have much better leverage. Whenever I hear that props are performing poorly, I look at what is happening in the entire scrum, quite often the culprit can be found there. 

Beast is no quota. I know you don't like non-whites Herr Albi, but one must at least pretend to be competent in these matters. God knows it's been a wretched few days for the two of you! :D

PS: Mike, our best scrums over the years have included Victor. I saw past posts where you confused the locks and made a bit of a fool of yourself. Was very funny. 

Mar 10, 2019, 11:35

Organhuffer you crack me up at times. Trying to sell the idea the pap string bean lock could scrum. Bwhahahahaha man that is hilarious!:D

Bulls miss Lood and Snyman. 

LIONS props doing well. 

That Bools 15 has promise? 

Mar 10, 2019, 11:44

Dream on Silly Billy

Beast is no quota - has never been - but at 33 years of age his scrumming prowess has declined and keeps on declining.   And Matfield in 2014 and 2015 was squashed between the props and the number 8 and his back was often enough bent badly - making it impossible  for him to add strength in scrums.   

Your excuses are really feeble - the real problems wih the Shark scrumming is in the Tight 5 - or perhaps it would help if they follow White's advice and move Esterhuizen to 7.:D:D:D

Mar 10, 2019, 12:54

It's truly amazing how he can see the flanks and locks binding so well from the side ... or could it be just another thumbsuck from, Doos ... I wonder ... ??

What he also seems to forget is that it's the Bulls put in and as you can clearly see by the tightheads right arm, they're begun with their forward thrust a little early ... the ball's still in the scrummies hands.

It has nothing to do with leverage or binding ... body position ... or anything else that this fools busy conjuring. It has everything to do with an early thrust and so the momentum goes the Bulls way.

The quota Beast and Coenie are caught napping ... while the ref watches on. Chances are that the Sharks were awarded a penalty for this illegal tactic. 

Sharks haven't had a powerful scrum in ages ... so once again, 'm not sure the dweeb is on about ... how could they ... old man Beast the quota is there ... we all know that he should have retired 5 years ago.


Mar 10, 2019, 12:54

Mar 10, 2019, 12:54

Mar 10, 2019, 15:43

Says Lickspittle who really believed Thomas the Tank was the future.

Mar 10, 2019, 15:46

Another embarrassing call. I better not stir up the wee fella anymore or he'll begin to cry. I can sense how unhinged he is, so much so he was clearly mashing that response out on his keyboard. Update comment only needs to be pressed once Herr Albi. 

Mar 10, 2019, 17:18

Silly Billy

Your constant idiocy on rugby issues is hard to swallow for real rugby supporters.   You have never once proved that what you have written is actually factual or logical on site, 

Mar 10, 2019, 17:23

Real rugby supporters? Like the fact that the Boks really lost all their tests in 2013? Or bemoaning the fact that Cuntfield left the game with his head held high? Sure, what a fan you are. I wonder if you were one of those who talked down our WC win. 

Mar 10, 2019, 17:51

Silly Billy

What the hell is the above drivel meaning.    I have never once seen anyone claiming that the Boks really lost all their tests in 2013.   

You are a good one to call anyone Cuntfield.   I spent  a fortune in 2007 to go to France to watch the games,    I was a great supporter of the Springboks then and is really disappointed in what happened under De Villiers, Meyer and Coetzee.

De Villiers was a clueless coach - Meyer and De Villiers in the end worse.        

You need to Log in to reply.
Back to top