So who was our most prolific tackler in 2018

Mozart 

Don't try and  BS again.   I counted only the games in which both played in - which is a much more fair contribution iro games and the tackle comparison and that should that in the same games Du Toit made 27 more tackles than Mostert and missed 4 more tackles than Mostert.

There is one more game - I did not count because Mostert played the full game and Du Toit only 30 minutes.   However I would also count that in and he difference then was and that would mean that the difference is still 18 more tackles for Du Toit. 

You not only lied about the system - but also the number of minutes played - in the case of Mostert he played in 11 games and played for 886 minutes and Du Toit played in  the same - but was on the bench in one game and played only for 30 minutes making it 834 minutes.   Adding the Wales game is  normal statistical abuse by you, but even if you add it  will mean Du Toit played for only be 915 minutes and not 1023 minutes - lie exposed.  

Fact is you led about the missed tackles too - Du Toit missed 24 tackles and Mostert 20.   So I am giving up on you.  You thought nobody would check what you did and everyone will believe you.   Go and hide your head in shame.

So your whole calculations is BS as per normal.  You better check your facts before you write BS anyway.    

But Mostert had more process tackles

Listen  Mozart

In the first English test Du Toit played for 30 minutes in the first England test since he was on the bench.   Du Toit was on the bench and played only for 30 minutes.    

How the hell do you get to Du Toit playing in 14 tests and  Mostert only 12.   You are as mad as a march hare trying to prove that you can equate that by crooked calculation to benefit Mostert.   You cannot use that to benefit Mostert by using non-playing as if that would help Mostert and discredit Du Toit.  

The only reasonable way is to compare the 12 games in which both players played and then get a result of what happened in the 12 games - not a mythical calculation comparing what happened in 12 games and not add the two games Mostert had no hand in.

If you want to do that it is total BS anyway since you try and make calculations as it is not comparing apples with apples.   You can only compare the facts in respect of what happened in tests in which both players played.    That was 12 tests - with Du Toit being on the bench playing 30 minutes in one test.  

BS remains BS irres pective of how Mozart made thinsg up.

Why should only the games where both players were on the park count in terms of calculating their numbers for the season? That makes no sense.

By that logic we can't, for example, compare De Allende's and Esterhuizen's tackle averages, because they weren't on the field at the same time.

OK  Mostert was subbed once at minute 63 - so he did not play for 17 minutes and in your dim calculation you take 63 minute form his playing time - not 17 minutes.

So what was your calculation in those 11 tests:-

Mostert played in 11 tests =   880 minutes minus 27 = 86 1 minutes

Du Toit played in 11 tests  =  880 minutes minus 50 = 830 minutes.

That is a fair comparison as you stated  lately.  Another theoretical way to do it is to take the number of minutes played by Du Toit in all fourteen tests.    Take the 11 tests minutes played by Mostert and making a calculation extending the average number of minutes played to cater for the three extra tests and add the number of tackles made and missed on the same basis.  

I prefer to be comparing things that actually happened  on tests where  both players played and reduce the number of actual minutes not played due to replacement as indicated above.

As stated - both actually never had the same results as calculated by you above.     

Mostert is the more accurate defender of the two. When Steph is accurate, he can catch defenders behind the gainline and with force, such as the home Aussie test. It's this mobility issue which leaves him exposed. I can cite many instances of Steph being beaten cleanly which doesn't show up in the stats. If we are to go through his tackles, how many were dominant and how many were weak? Stats don't show these things. Eben is more mobile and stronger than either, and makes far few errors.

If we are to make a final decision, we need to gather their full body of work and compare them. It seems our primary two candidates are Steph and Mostert. I'd put André on the list as his defence changes how teams play. No other Boks can make such a claim, aside from Faf to an extent. Rushing the attack to play the ball too early and wide takes pressure off our weak defence from 13 and the outside backs and makes the oppositions key runners less effective. That he can be left entirely on his own without support to tackle anyone from 1 to 15 is another string to his bow. 

Mostert will never get the credit he deserves.

PSDT did expetionally well this year but Mostert was pretty much on par with him....so where is Mostert's praise?

It's not there. Why's it not there?

Because a lock MUST look like Eben or Lood to get credit. What he acatually does means nothing. The fact that his tackle count is on par with that of a loosie. Who cares. The fact that his tackle count far outmatches any other lock. Meanigless. The fact that he was a bohemoth at lineout time. Piss off. The fact that he made a shit ton of smart plays all season for both his club and country. Yeah pull the other one.

WE WANT EBEN! WE WANT LOOD!

This is the incredible level of coordinated stupidity very unique to the South African mentality.

If Mostert dissapeared in any single game the way that Eben has just about all season we'd never hear the end of it.

It's a joke really. I hope Mostert does get snubbed next year. Makes a shit ton of money at his new club and never looks back.

Most Bok fans dont deserve a warrior like him on our side.

What we deserve is giant posers with a 30% win record. That's makes us happy.

This is the thing Rooi

We constantly hear about the hard yards Eben does. The mythical miles that he puts in so far under the radar that it takes a camp fire and three hours of non stop boozing to cunjure up the vision of it actually happening.

Those hard yards are in fact so mysterious in their effort that they defy even the stataticians because his tackle count, meters made and turnovers dont even show up.

So if on paper he is nothing special, and on the field it's close to impossible to detect his impact...what exactly are we getting from him?

Wait wait i think i know...

Ask the ABs is they'd rather face a team with or without Eben.

It's his mammoth reputation. That's what we get. The installing of fear so deep in the heart of the opposition that they dont sleep for weeks prior to facing him on the field.

So much so that when the day comes, they fall apart before our very eyes and the Boks strole over them to score points on top of points with consumate ease.

All in the shadow of the the great Zeus winking at the crowd as he flexes those guns for all to admire.

Mozart

You did not have Mostert at 863 - your originals statement was he played 836 minutes.  

But still your home calculation remains utter BS - so it is not worth  any further comment.    

Plum

You are really a nice describer of the hysterics about Etzebeth  insofar as his avid supporters are concerned.   I think that other than his first test after injury against the English in June he was very good  - after that he dropped off the screen.     

I think he must get out of his self-importance and start producing the goods - like he did earlier in his career.

The most over-hyped Bok players in the modern era: Watson, Lambie, Damian. There's no getting away from that. 

Mozart 

Your statistics abuse tactics has been exposed again.  

If Mike tries to prove anything, the mental gymnastics will tie him up in knots. 

The only realistic comparisons can be made when players played in the same games and against the same opponents.   Any other story is a concoction of garbage any scientific evaluator will ignore, 

Anything else can best be described as statistical abuse with ulterior motives.  

Statistisch abuse with ulterior motives? How about omitting 127 sets of missed tackle data? Was than an "oops" moment, or a "my tongue forked and I intentionally endeavoured to deceive the entire forum whilst slandering those who disagreed" moment? 

AO

Get your brain in desperado - it obviously is malfunctioning.  What 127 sets of missed tackle data are you talking about anyway?   

BB

What is meant by hype and what is fake news?

Hype is being used in the case where the players have top class performances and in the case of top class performance.   Should the performance goes out of the window there will be no hype.

What we  have on this site is the total disregard by some members of everything factual and produce their own fake news to counter existence of real performance -replacing it with their fake news and statistical abuse to discredit players.

In practice they are doing fake reports much like the charges laid by Malema against Gordahn in the Royal Bank of Canada case.  Create a fake environment and then advertise it as the truth,   I listen regularly to the Zondo Commission and what those members are doing is what some people are advertising outside the Commission and then refusing to testify before the Commission.   In the present rugby environment they spread fake news and when challenged to send their fake stories to Erasmus and ask him what really is going on - they refuse to do so.  .       

Frans Steyn sparked our WC campaign, twice. He was a solid contribution out of position at 15 in 2009. Was our best 12 for many years, he might still be. Spies was overhyped in his first two years, but became a solid contributor post-2007. Pienaar was hyped up after his try against the Brumbies in 2006, but he wasn't the most hyped player we've ever had. Russell had a bit of hype, but again, not the most hyped player we've had. Russell showed flashes of quality, even at 10 for the Boks. Pienaar has had good tests at both 9 and 10.

Lambie, Damian and Watson were lauded as best players in their position in all of world rugby at varying points. The hype lasted many years. In Lambie's case, seven years. Damian is five years and counting. I recall Watson being hyped as early as 2004. Say 4 or 5 years? The longevity of the mythos is extreme, unmatched by any other players. None of the three produced even a solitary flicker of what they were claimed to be. 

Steyn also missed 3 tackles in the World Cup Final - one of which was on Tait which nearly let to an English try.   He was never really a center and was declared as such by his coach.  He never was hyped up - in his case it was total fake news as his performances since  2012 was seriously deficient.

Watso n was not hyped up - he was too controversial and never met the hype requirement as to false performance bases.   In the cases of Lambie and De Allende there was always realistic reports in the media - often enough critical as well - so it does not fall in what could be called hype.   

Most over hyped players in my opinion. F Steyn, Spies, Pienaar, Russel, 

If Spies was kept on the wing, or even at 13, he would have lived up to some of the hype.

He was the closes t we ever had to a Lomu type character but we pissed him away.

Plum

Lomu looked like Lomu and played like Lomu - Spies looked like Tarzan and played like Jane.

Who said he would have succeeded on wing?  Anyway I think Spies end up failing once he developed his health problem and never got back to playing as well as he did before.  

The Spies of 2006 and 2007 was a plastic fan's dream come true. It was then he was labelled as best Bok ever. Missing tackles and running mindlessly, a super tractor.  

The post 2007 Spies was a vastly improved player. 

No he does not have the better numbers - period.   And you can count them yourself if you doubt it.   Remember to take 17 minutes off the playing time where Mostert was subbed and 50 minutes in a test (the first test in June against England) where Du Toit was on the bench.]

So the playing times are    -    

Mostert         =           880 - 17   =  863

Du Toit         =           880 - 50   =  830

The total tackles made are   -

Mostert         =           141

Du Toiit        =           150

Missed tackles    

Mostert          =           20

Du Toit          =           24

MTR       

Mostert          =           12,42

Du Toit          =            13,79

It must be borne in mind that in the tests concerned  Du Toit played 33 minutes less than Mostert did and his tackle count could be substantially higher as a result of those 33 minutes,  In the test where the difference occurred Mostert in 80 minutes made 16 tackles and missed 1 - and in the 30 minutes Du Toit played he made 7 tackles missing 1.  On that basis the figures may look very different if Du Toit played the extra 50 minutes in that game - but it is best to ignore that type of theoretical. calculations since there may have not been maintenance of the average.    

So let put it this way - despite the fact that DuToit played 41 minute less than Mostert did - he still made 9 more tackles than Mostert did.   The number of missed tackles of 4 makes no real difference to the actual situation - Du Toit made 9 more effective tackles than Mostert did.     

So Plum, you think the rating system as discussed in THIS thread is total horse manure?

...and you think Mosterdt should replace Eben?

I'm telling you all again...on this level, muscle memory is crucial.  It's that instinct that makes your body react even before the brain gives the command. Muscle momory is built by repetition...wax on, wax off. They say it takes at least 10 000 hours to become a master. For test rugby, you need to be a master of your position. The difference between 4 and 5 is the same as between 1 and 3, 6 and 7. Yes, some players can do these transitions well, others can't...some people are ambidextrous,  but that is extremely rare. No. 4 or 5 locks are specialized positions. Eben and Snyman are 4's, Mosterdt, PSDT and Lood 5's.