So the stats blow up the conventional wisdom

Tackles missed.....NZ 15%/ Boks 25% . Metres per carry....NZ 4.9/ Boks 2.9 . Turnovers won NZ 9/ Boks 5 . Scrums won NZ 100%/ Boks 50% . Lineouts won NZ 93%/ Boks 64 % . But here's the kicker, we offloaded 11 times to NZs 12, off fewer carries. And stunningly we kicked 24 times out of hand to NZs 37. We apparently are kicking too little and not using the kick as a tool to break up stacked defences.

 Pollution warning clearly required.

 
Noted ... thanks!!

So you don't really have any counter arguments. You just disagree in principle.

 If  I post a pollution report there are obvious and legitimate counter arguments - so your comments on the alert also represents pollution support. .    

 Ugh... Go and scan each and every so-called pollution warning.

Not one of them contain a single valid argument to disprove any statement that lead to the so-called warning. The fact that you keep doing this merely indicates that you do not have any valid arguments and it also proves that you are a spoilt child who failed to get his way...

The mere fact that you resort to this pitiful tactic tells everyone all they ever need to know about you...

Cry Wolf!

 Another pollution warning against ignorance and lies 

I think Ou Tokkie has run out of arguments and instead of agreeing he is hiding behind his so-called pollution warnings. He has nothing to offer. No valid counter arguments. Nothing. He is running on empty and he knows it. Ou Tokkie has become toothless and he is scared others might notice.

It's a desperate cry for attention.....he put himself in a box, and now he finds nobody opens the lid.

This whole kicking thing is nothing new. It is a relatively well known fact that NZ on many occasions have kicked more than us. This applies to both Super rugby and Internationals. Our problem is the accuracy of our kicks and our decision making as to when to use kicking as an option. In other words, their decision making and execution is much better than ours. 
Still, it is interesting to see the facts laid bare. 

True Bloo......but there were a few decent kicks from the Boks. I remember one pin point up and under by Hougaard, not well contested. So if Folau contests for Oz and Read/Smith/Dagg contest for the ABs, who contests for us? None of the loosies are particularly good, nor any of the backs. We have no kick chase. .. But the stats also make a different point....unlike the Boks and the Bargies, NZ does use the tactical kick to break up stale phase play. You don't see the repetitive, slow bashing into a wall and the tactical kick is one of the variations. Most of our tactical kicks are thinly disguised defensive kicks. We don't use the kick when we are on top, in the opponent's 22, we use it when we are afraid of turnovers.

A successful kick chase depends as much on the chaser, if not more, than on the kicker. Most of the Bulls success with this were due to Morne Steyn's accurate kicking combined with first Habana's, and then Bjorn Basson's ability to chase down the kick as well as their ability to compete for the kicked ball. We do not have any players who could chase down a kick downfield reasonably well. It is a dangerous weapon if you have an accurate kicker as well as someone who can chase the kick. If you don't have both then best to forget about it.

I forget to save Ou Tokkie some time and add the obligatory pollution warning.

Mike, is it automatically pollution if Moz posts it? If he said Jacob Zuma was a corrupt thief for example, would that also be pollution? I'm just trying to understand, because what he started this thread with is 100% fact. Those are stats Mike, not opinions. 

Serious pollution alert.
bluebook
if you look at facts fine - but the main polluter in the past refused to recognize there is a difference between objective and effective kicks and aimless kicks and what represents aimless kicks.   To consider the option of mo re kicking without regard to the latter facts represents idiocy of the worst order - hence the pollution warning.   
 

Serious pollution alert.
bluebook
if you look at facts fine - but the main polluter in the past refused to recognize there is a difference between objective and effective kicks and aimless kicks and what represents aimless kicks.   To consider the option of mo re kicking without regard to the latter facts represents idiocy of the worst order - hence the pollution warning.