Sharks bring back Frans, bring back Jake

 Agree about Jake  Selecting ou lardy John as CEO was very naieve.
kan kan was useless a real show pony

 The refrain should be bring back Plumtree and Frans was poor this year - so why bring him back?  But then he was poor since 2012 - so the refrain should rather be - hope  Jordaan gets back soon.    
The other refrain should be - get rid of Jannie and Beast, get rid of both locks and hope Oosthuizen and Du Toit would be back soon.   
The Sharks are in deep trouble and it starts with their Tight 5 who was non-existent today.  They could not even hold their end up when they scrummed against 6 forwards and a backline player - so what does that show?
There is a lot of bringing in into this side that needs to be done - but what is brought in must not be worse than they have at present - and Fransie is worse. 
  

Mallet says we do not trust young players in South Africa and he felt backs and loose forwards should be given chances when young. Naas started at 19, Mallet at 20 and Breyton Paulse at 20 as well.
Sharks need that energy.

 Beeno
The Sharks is a tired old team - that is a fact.   Instead of White and Smit making sure they have younger players they went for the tired old players.   I seriously think there is a real need for team renewal and I agree with Mallett.
Of the players I would replace none is more necessary than Jannie and Beast as props, their ancient locks who produces nothing, they need to find a decent center pairing and I am af rad Fransie is not the answer - he is a younger tired player with a dismal record since his return from France.
I think Smit caused serious damage to the Sharks - his importing of players from England was a disgrace.
The Sharks did not take out insurance by endeavouring to keep their younger players. One would guess that they could younger talented players for the money they are paying to Stevens and Botha et al.
However, what is equally if not more worrisome is that Meyer has the same inclination - select the dinosaurs and don't look at their performances.          

 Now lets get this straight - where did I once say anything in favour of Lambie, Esterhuizen, Marais or Coetzee above  or under any other threat?   What I did say is that there was no Tight 5 in evidence and that is a fact.
Jannie and beast was hopeless - they could not even hold up their end when the Crusaders were scrumming with six players and a backline player.   What did they produce?  Frankly near to zero.   
The Crusaders scrum was not so dominant all season - they were not dominant last week as well -  and their domination was largely the result of illegal scrumming in one game - which suddenly became your norm.   Today they were totally dominant against two of the worst scrumming performers of any SA franchise I have seen for a long time.  When will it enter your befuddled head that Jannie is not even a remotely decent scrummer anymore?   I must remember though that he is your "national treasure" and that you make it a habit of calling flops "national treasures".
Talking about defense - you obviously missed it that both Jannie and Beast have one thing in common.  Each made two tackles and missed two tackles - so the poor defense was not concentrated in the backline only.  
The fact is that other than Reinach, virtually every other player in the Sharks team was a disgrace.   I said that in another threat and what I said remained true.   The forwards combined had so many missed tackles that it caused massive overlaps for the Crusaders to use against the Sharks.   
But saying that means nothing to you because you do not understand the game of rugby -  for you overlaps means zero and who caused them less than zero.   
      

 So the Sharks feed the scrum 11 times and get good ball 11 times. But the scrums are the reason the Sharks lost and not the fact that the Sharks made 3 clean breaks and the Saders made 17 according to Moronic.

The sharks starting forwards missed 10 tackles, the Saders missed 8. But those 2 additional missed tackles apparently led to 15 more line breaks according to Moronic.

Complete rubbish  uttered with total confidence.

 Hogwash - it is not the numbers of tackles missed that made the difference it is what followed the missed tackles that is of importance.   The fact that the Crusaders missed 8 tackles as against the 10 missed by the Sharks by the Sharks is meaningless - lets look at the missed tackle ratio's of the starting forwards:-
Crusaders - starting forwards
Tackles made   -   37Tackles missed  -   8Missed tackle ratio -   17,7
Sharks - starting forwards 
 Tackles made   -   25Tackles missed  -   10Missed tackle ratio -   28,8
The other story is also BS.  Most of the scrums won by the Sharks were won with the scrums going backwards and even though there was no scrum losses the resultant balls were poor and put every player receiving balls under pressure.   
If you try and use figures - please provide the full figures not twisted ones to serve your delusi onal arguments. 

No Moronic....no. A higher percentage of tackling misses is not going to explain a 5 times difference in  clean breaks, especially when the absolute difference is in essence the same. Absolute clean breaks are a function of absolute missed tackles...not the missed tackle percentage. You may not be able to grasp this...so trust me.
All your perecentage tells us is the Saders had less runs at forwards than the Sharks did. Which in turn contradicts your other point that the Shark forwards never provided good possession. 

Even the 7 missed tackles by the Sharks backs vs 4 for the Saders can't  begin to explain 17 clean breaks vs 3. The Saders  structured their moves to get runners outside the tackling line.. They completely bamboozled the Sharks backs and loosies.
Singling out Jannie  and the Beast to blame for this loss is just pathetic bias.

 Your arguments are pathetic.  I did out single out anybody for the loss - the team as a whole was pathetic - that was my stance from the word go.   To try to exonerate certain players are also pathetic. 
You blame only the backline players for line breaks - also a farce -  since most of the tries came from overlaps caused by both forwards and backs missing tackles.   To try and run away from those misses is just showing why you lack rugby knowledge.
The other fact you ignore is that loosies vanish from site when they have to take over the critical function of support for the under-performing  Tight 5 players and all the Tight 5 players under-performed.   Just take an example Kankowski took 6  lineouts -  Botha at lock 0 -  Wentzel at least made an effort by taking 5 line-outs.   Since when is your chief line out jumper a no 8?   O yes - taking into account last weeks show of the Bulls as well - it is when you have duds like Both and Matfield at lock.
Another problem up front was the pathetic Deysel.   Aside from the fact that he got red-carded - he did squat in defense while eh was on the field of play.   Nothing in defense and nothing in attack.
When dealing with the issue of the performances of some players - I did not only look at the game yesterday - I looked at the other games this  tournament as well.   Some of the players I mentioned as being way below par in all the matches played were -
*   Jannie du Plessis*   Both locks who played yesterday*   Deysel*   Francois Steyn*   Both outside centers
At least in his previous game Beast showed something - totally absent yesterday.   The importance of Du Toit in that team was highlighted by the pathetic showing of the forwards since his injury.   
Steyn's absence yesterday meant nothing to the team.  His defense was thus far in the tournament so pathetic that he would have been of zero value in defense against the Crusaders.   
Sad to say - but your first blame is Lambie - who was injured and was not playing for nearly half the game.  And your attack on Reinach as scrumhalf - the only Sharks player with a decent performance - saying he did what he did because he should be on the wing and not at scrumhalf  - was relentless and totally unrealistic.
However, it again shows that to discuss rugby issues with you are impossible  since you are totally clueless and hampered by prejudice and favouritsm.                    

 Actually the only Sharks players to come out with credit were Reinach and Esterhuizen. Esterhuizen showed plenty of fight in a lost cause. Put in some huge hits and bounced poor Crotty at will.
Esterhuizen had a fine game. Murray is long past it he was crap.
As for Jake well it does not appear that the Brumbies are missing him so let's forget that plank of a man. One certainty is Gold has never amounted to much as a coach and it shows.
As for Frans well he has yet to fire this season so not sure what difference he would have made.