Player Ratings
15.Zane Kirchner (6) Some good hard running and solid on defence. His big boot was useful in clearing well into England territory. He did miss a crucial tackle that Hougaard had to mop up though. Otherwise a solid showing.
14.JP Pietersen (6) JP went looking for work running some great lines, held his nerve to send Jean through for an important try and was solid on defence.
13.Jean de Villiers (5) He was bettered by Manu who, in the end, sought after Jean. frail on defence, but he did dot down for an all important try. The Boks lacked leadership for much of the game, the void left by Smit was evident and Jean needs to make a big step up next week, both as a player and captain.
12.Frans Steyn (6.5) Was a monster on defence knocking down all before him, his lateral defence was solid and he easily had the better of Manu and numerous England forwards. We saw some deft offloads in contact and a good sense of the players around him. His distribution was very good, adding much length to the Bok attack as they started to open up for periods in the second half. The Boks need to bring Frans into play much more next week and much of that will depend on an improved showing at the breakdown and in contact.
11.Bryan Habana (8) Those foolish enough to believe the media bleatings that he was done were, again, humiliated. He made some serious in-roads into England's defence beating many defenders. his kick-chase was superb as he pressured and harassed the English under the high ball. His defence was at times bruising and, above all, accurate. Sent a monstrous touch finder deep into England territory and looks to be enjoying the new era and finally casting aside the spectre of the Peter era.
10.Morné Steyn (6) Morné did very little wrong in general play. Unfortunately he rarely got gold of the ball in the first 40 as the Boks stuttered and could provide little of a platform for the half-backs. As the game went on he showed glimpses of what he can do combining well with Frans. He was solid on defence. With game 1 under their belt he should settle his kicking.
09.François Hougaard (8) He has taken some criticism for his showing, but in fact came through impressively. At times he received no protection whatsoever as England were allowed to swarm all over him. The Boks were poor in their presentation of the ball which slowed down the Bok attack. That said, Hougaard cleared his lines and was a nuisance around the ruck fringes. His liveliness often creating something out of nothing. His cover defence was superb as he was simply everywhere all game long. In the second half he had more freedom to showcase his ability.
08.Pierre Spies (5) A very quiet game from Spies. He did little wrong, but little stood out either. He had one strong burst forward and often got over the advantage line. Defensively he was solid without being dominant. A workmanlike showing.
07.Willem Alberts (9) Alberts was immense in all that he did. His carries were monstrous as he ploughed into the English time and again; they simply had no answer for him the entire game. Even on defence, particularly in the first half, he kept driving back attackers and stifling their momentum. It is by far his strongest showing in a Bok jersey. Should he continue to build on this performance he will be the new Juan Smith and perhaps even more then that!
06.Marcell Coetzee (6) He was largely inaffective throughout the first half and only started to come to life midway through the second half. He had one big carry that took the Boks into the England 22. His defence was creeky and had no answer to England's poachers at the breakdown. All-in-all, a shadow of the player Brussow is in all facets of play in the position.
05.Juandré Kruger (7) With mighty big shoes to fill he did not by any means shame himself. He was authorative in contact, once simply running over his opposite number and was assured at lineout time. Looks to have potential with Eben as the two look a good prospect as the future of Bok rugby.
04.Eben Etzebeth (7) Like Kruger, a solid showing, conceded a silly penalty early on but did very little else wrong throughout. A solid showing.
03.Jannie du Plessis (7) Dispelled fears over his recent slump in form. Was strong in the scrum and good in general play. Did very little wrong.
02.Bismarck du Plessis (5) Bismarck carries a big reputation that deflated yesterday. Most of what he did was inaccurate with very poor defence around the fringes, very weak defence and creeky ball carries. He made one turnover in the first half, but did very little else positive. As the Boks got the better of England in the second half he started to make more ground with each carry, but looks very insecure taking the ball into contact. No leadership skills were on display and he was very lucky not to be pinged for attacking Manu's face. It was a very poor showing all round.
01.Tendai Mtawarira (5) Beast? Was he there? he had one big tackle and did very little else. On defence he was nowhere and well of the standards set by Steenkamp over the last two years. Was easily surpassed by Coenie. Perhaps it would be wiser to use Beast as an impact player.
Replacements:
16.Adriaan Strauss (7) Was powerful ball in hand and strong on defence. A very strong showing from the Freestate captain. Looked assured and authorative at all times, his run right over an England lock was particularly pleasing.
17.Coenie Oosthuizen (8) A massive showing the scrum that left Mears looking rather pale. A massive step up from Beast and one of the changes that really seemed to lift the side with far greater intensity and purpose.
18.Flip van der Merwe (5) Hardly anywhere, the most notable involvement whilst he was one was s slipped tackle that allowed England to venture into our 22. Was well off the pace of Eben and Kruger.
19.Keegan Daniel
20.Ruan Pienaar (6) Did nothing wrong, but nothing spectacular either. Perhaps that was a good thing as he just got work providing a good service from the base. Was overshadowed by Hougaard though.
21.Patrick Lambie (5) Again, didn't do an awful lot wrong, but made very little impact at any stage of the game. His defence lacks bite and his carries and runs lack purpose or power. He does not look strong in any sort of contact and was merely a link at the best of times. His touch finders lack distance as well. The harder running of Kirchner edged this one comfortably.
22.Wynand Olivier (5) Played a bit part as a blood sub, very little time to make an impact and he certainly didn't provide any spark whilst on. Solid but quiet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Points of Interest
01:09 - Ruck inside England 22, Bismarck fails to hold off England counter-ruck which stalls the whole process. Kruger, Beast and Jannie have to stabilize the situation - our second pod out of position this destroying our chance to attack England.
01:26 - A poorly protected ruck and, once again, Hougaard struggles to get the ball as the backs are slow in getting into position. Turnover England.
02:20 - Habana, as has been doing over the last four years - fields and England kick; he proceeds to beat five defenders, the fifth only just scragging him from behind.
02:23 - Frans given ball with little momentum; he holds up the tackle and passes behind which results in a break down the touchline. Jean eagerly passes to JP instead of engaging 11 which results in 11 drifting and bringing down JP.
04:11 - A tap-and-go by Bismarck; he infringes, England have the penalty and clear their lines just outside the Bok 22.
05:08 - Manu attacks the outside shoulder of Jean, he proceeds to hand-off Jean and get behind him. Jean attacks the feet of Manu from behind to bring him down. Frans immediately contests the ball, but two Englishmen well on hand to recycle quickly.
05:48 - Etzebeth not rolling away, penalty England; 0-3.
09:32 - Hougaard's kick is charged down as Bismarck fails to guard ruck fringe; Morné regathers from behind takes it forward, bearing one defender, driving two Englishmen backwards and presents ball cleanly.
09:37 - Alberts goes on the charge. He beats two defenders and knocks England 9 to the ground. He is eventually dragged down by 7, but offloads to Bismarck who loses the ball in contact.
10:09 - Ashton runs head-on into Bismarck; who drives him backwards until Kruger joins in.
10:45 - Kirchner fields a kick just outside the Bok 22, gains good ground. The following ruck is poorly protected which leaves Hougaard scrambling back with the ball, eventually the Boks are turned over.
12:25 - Habana chases kick, but is cleared out of the way which leaves the tackled player unprotected. Alberts rushes in and picks up the ball in a fluid move and charges into England's 22.
12:42 - Morné cross field kick, perfectly weighted and placed. Kirchner just unable to win the aerial battle.
16:13 - Bismarck attempts to contest the ball, but is literally turned over like a beetle onto his back, but this time he gets the ball as well. Turnover Boks.
19:18 - Bismarck with a skew throw at lineout.
20:33 - Slow ball at ruck in England 22, Hougaard though snipes through ruck fringe beating two defenders. Offloads to Spies in front of third defender.
21:25 - England clear downfield, Kirchner gathers loose ball. He steps 14 and takes the contact. Habana clears 14 and allows Bismarck to come in behind him and seal off the ruck.
22:06 - Hougaard with the box kick, Habana fields kick and almost gets a pass away to Kirchner for a try.
25:27 - Bismarck gets handed-off as Englishman makes his way deepp into Bok 22. Bismarck and Kruger bring him down near Bok tryline. England penalty, 3-6.
28:05 - Jean shoulder charges Manu's face sending him to the ground. (Jean the ball carrier).
28:30 - Bismarck with the carry, but is turned over. Boks have the advantage though.
30:09 - Spies fields kick-off, bumps of 4 and makes good ground.
30:01 - England surge into Bok 22. Hougaard charges in from behind and brings 14 to ground, who stepped Kirchner just outside Bok 22.
43:43 - Manu knocks Jean over with a powerful run but trips over the would-be defender in the process.
45:33 - Bismarck tries to assert himself at ruck time with little impact, he then resiorts to attacking the face of Manu whose back was turned and unable to defend himself.
46:11 - Jean attempts to take the outside gap and beat 14 but is easily dealt with
46:34 - Boks rumble through Alberts and Jannie into the England 22. They have numbers as England scramble desperately, as it was, Hougaard spent an age digging in the ruck to retrieve the ball.
46:48 - Hougaard looked to dot down as England left the inside shoulder of the ruck exposed, but Alberts flies in off his feet and smashes him carelessly. Opportunity almost lost but eventually Morné dots down well.
59:40 - A big break from Habana beating two defenders and dragging a third for good ground. Morné spreads it wide and Boks overwhelm England to dot down in the corner through Jean.
61:55 - Habana drives 14 into the dirt with a trademark tackle.
71:15 - Manu runs, stops and thumps Jean backwards, Frans moves out and thumps Manu to ground.
South Africa v England [Definitive Review]
Just a few questions. if Kirchner was so good - why was he replaced early. Where are the hard runs coming from - I saw one which resulte in a penalty. If he was 6 - my granny was 10.
Pietersen did bugger all the whole game and you give him top marks - what a joke!!
I ask again - what game did you watch? On your analysis you cannot be serious about Steyn performing better than De Villiers. You must be kidding.
Morne was average - but bad in kicking aimlessly and missing conversions. i said 4 out of 10 - but with a lot of leniency - perhaps being lenient 5. Defintely not 6.
Hougaard was hopeless and I think Meyer is thoroughly miffed with him. What did he do to get 8? Slow service and poor kicking game - that gives him 8???????
Spies was poor and the other loosies had to do his work for him. 4 at best
Poor Bismarck. Accordfing to your comments he was supposed to be the hooker and at the same time be a flank and no 8 all rolled into one. Absolute crap.
I made notes on every player and what they did throughout the game - and where I said it was an aimless and unproductive kick - you admire the kick. Where can i buy the stuff you are smoking or is it confined to Pretoria?
You are quite cockey for someone routinely exposed as a liar and a fool. Stick to what you know best, whatever that may be.
What a laugh.....Jean and Bismarck our worst performers. Jean gets the same rating as Wynand Olivier. What is your major malfunction I wonder....eyes or brain.
Jean should've got a 7.
JP conceded a penaltly but I forgot what half it was in so I think he should be a 4.
A laugh you say? What exactly did either Jean or Bismarck do in this match? Both were substandard, none more so than Bismarck. Jean was a significant defensive liability that offered nothing throughout this game and very little that Bismarck did was successful. At your age Moz, it's probably both that prevents you from seeing the cold hard facts. Too bad.
Shezza, Eben conceded a penalty that directly led to conceding 3 points. Must he be rated as 4? Your logic, or lack thereof is astounding.
Der Aristokrat
I watched the full replay of the game again and came to the conclusion that Coetzee came very near to an 8 in his performance. His tackle rate was extremely high and he protected the ball as well as Alberts. I also came to the conclusion that Pietersen was really a 5 that I originally suggested. He did show that he is in the team - but was not a major presence. Morne Steyn was average on attack and defence, but deficient in the kicking game and under par in respect of convertions. Stay with 4 in his case.
Now there is something else. If anyone disagrees with your own questionable facts - which are really just fabrications - you get abusive and childish. That is immature. I am trying to suggest that you drop that type of conduct and rather debate issues by justifying your point of view. Let me explain. Steyn kicked the ball - I said aimless kick, you said a good kick. I said it was aimless becuase th ball was turned over and we lost possession, but you never give an explanation - you start saying the opponent is stupid for disagreeing with you. Why can you not accept that others have differences in view of even the same incidents and outcomes and not accuse the opposing person of stupidity or foolishness?
Der you are an imbecile if you think JP deserves to be in the team, whenever he tried to tackle players he just bounced off them and the only positive thing he did the whole match was pass to Jean to score a try. Eben atleast contributed to the match so that cancels out the fact that he conceded a penalty. You gave JP the same grade as Coatzee and only 0.5 lower than Fransie, you seem to have a very logical way of thinking (Sarcasm). In reality you're an idiot.
Most of those ratings are wrong. Spoes probably had his best game for the boks in ages- great in the lineouts, was actually tackling, good on the high ball and had some strong runs. How did Hougard get an 8? His service was poor and was often not at the ruck- admittedly in the 1st half the English forwards were slowing the ball down. The locks both get a 7? I though they were both average. It was the loose forwards who played extremely well, otherwise the English forwards could have got the upperhand.
@Sharkbok, then maybe tennis is not for you.. LOL - Agree mostly with the statement.
Mike, you are nothing but a filthy and worthless liar. When it comes to abuse, it is you that has been provocative. I called you out on your complete fabrication on Du Preez and you couldn't stand that at all. I urged you to back up what you said, but you could never do that - on many topics that you were ruthlessly exposed on. Nobody on this site has come anywhere near the level of research I have produced on any topic. I have been quite patient for some time here, but things are starting to turn out like a certain SuperSupporter. If I say something that nobody likes, instead of trying to provide a debate, I am set upon by derision. Repeatedly I have encouraged debate, but insulting a person is not in any way a debate. I have done my part, and even willingly offered to upload games to whoever wanted them (all TNs from 1996 - present day) and share my information and do a combined study on whatever anyone wanted. That was not ever the objective of the current group though. What I am looking for will never be provided for on this site. I'm not interested in the typical waffle thrown about like pub banter, I am looking for intelligent debate on the game at a much higher and technical level.
You are clueless about most technical issues pertaining to rugby - and your only basis of argument relates to rubbish. You are completely lost in your total quest for support of Blue Bull players and fabricate nonsence about any threat to the players you support. I did not lie about the Murrayfield test and also the Twickenham test. I was there and saw it all happening with my own eyes. You obviously were not there and you obviously do not want to recognize the fact that Du Preez was replaced at half time at Murrayfield because he was killing the game by being totally predictable - after which the back line started functioing properly and Fourie managed amongst others to score two tries. At Twickenham Du Preez was nowhere near a maul when the forwards managed to affect a turnover and Du preez was not there to receive the ball - he was standing at full back - and the POMS got hold of the ball and score the winning try from there.
I have my own opinion about Du Preez - which definitely differ from your point of view. The fact that I read the performances of players differently from you and rate palyers on a non-partisan basis, does not make me a liar. You can never debate anything on any basis - since you start screaming insults when people differ from you. Your wild statements on Lambie is a case in point. You accuse a player of cowardice for no reason at all and refer to one case to prove your point. However, in looking at one incident you mentioned it became clear as daylight that you made a deduction that nobody else ever raised and which is ridiculous in the extreme..
Your format of debating issues is like one from a fourteen year old - who when faced with opposing views - runs to Mummy screaming:- "Mummy the bad people oppose what I am saying. They are lieing". i told you once before - if you cannot substantiate your statement by fact - do not make one based on fictional interpretation of plays. You came out with a piece of fiction - saying that Morne Steyn has got ball sense without even knowing what the term "ball sense" implied. It is evident that Steyn is not a natural ball player - and that he was utterly predicatable. Saturday he did not stand so far back that he could not pass the ball to number 12 - and as such even managed to score a trie. All people commented on that - but everyone agrees that although some aspects of his game improved - he was poor in other aspects. Your great take on that cross-kick on Saturday is an example. It happened when the position of where the ball was to almed at a position covered by a tall player - normally playing at full back and there was no way the kick could work out. The kick was consequently aimless and a real ball player would have passed the ball to the back line and tried to score from a back line move. Other parts of his kicking game also collapsed.
Another example of debate is that all Hougaard's problems stemmed from the fact that he was not protected by the loosies - with the result he was caught in possession by POM players. Let me tell you he was mostly standing there looking at the ball and not picking it up early and passing the ball out early. That resulted in counter-rucks by the players and turnovers - even the charge down of his kick. Why was he repalced early - I think it was because Meyer got entirely miffed by his poor play as well as that penalty in front of the post - when he tried a quick kick. Wrong decision by the referee - because the opposing players were not back ten meters. Worse decision - because it cost us 3 points
It never crossed your mind that after Pienaar came in the back line started to function better and they managed to score two tries - did it? So you give an under-performing Hougaard 8 points and the performing Pienaar 6 points. That is the type of factual situation you ignore. When you first start posting a week or two ago - I read your statements and thought some discussion would be possible. However, it soon became evident that discussion is just not possible with an immature kid. Now run off to Mummy and cry on her shoulder because of this message.
Krat now you be silly. You have the brain of Supersport here in Moxtart and Beeno and still you wnat more. Why you think you alleways knoe more than everyone. Listen to the peeps here. You learn lots.
Barcelona Boy
Member
Posts: 42 RE: South Africa v England [Definitive Review]
June 11, 2012, 20:40:38
Krat now you be silly. You have the brain of Supersport here in Moxtart and Beeno and still you wnat more. Why you think you alleways knoe more than everyone. Listen to the peeps here. You learn lots.
Some folk never listen, they are to intent on screaming their point. Some folk never learn, they are born clever..
Aristo, thanks for taking the time it obviously took you to get this post together. Some, if not most of your points, are valid, but I don't agree with everything you say. The thing is, you become immediately hostile if people differ with you on points you have made. Stop being so high and mighty and your own life will be a lot less stressfull. If you honestly belive you are better than the rest of us, please post your rugby playing/coaching CV, so that we can all be humbled. Seriously, please try to remember that most folks here have played rugby at some level or another, some even professionally, and don't need you permission to offer their opinions. I don't for a moment doubt your knowledge, and before you have a go at me, please understand that I am not insulting you, but rather want you to respect my opinions as I do yours. Ok, with that off my chest, I can get to the game, Hougard was not worth an 8. I agree 100% that he was left exposed by the forwards, which put him under pressure, so he wasn't able to perform as he could have, but what he did do was not worth an 8. I'd say 6 - 6.5 is fair. The two new locks, did well, but from a strictly rugby point of view (Not taking into account that it was their first test) they were'nt worth more than 6. Lastly, Jannie brings nothing special to the game but a relatively good scrum, outside that he is nothing but average, if not poor. Not worth a 7.
Mike, I just want to comment on that cross kick of Morne, we had already been awarded a penalty, and as most players do in that situation, he tried a longshot move in the hope of creating a try. The move failed and play was called back for the penalty. In my opinion, the kick was too shallow, and that is why it failed. It WAS NOT aimless, it was a gamble due to a waiting penalty.
Mike and Aristo, please please can we forget about comments regarding tests that happened 30 years ago! You okes are as bad as my wife!! Seriously, if you haven't managed to resolve those arguments by now, it aint gonna happen.....
No problem in smoking the peace pipe with Der Aristorkrat. However, I have a feeeling that he has been created by Beeno as a stirrer and needler of major controversy and should not have fallen in responding to him. Lets forget about the past and concentrate on the future. Thanks for your advice, pal.
By the way - I know of the penalty, but I do not agree that a kick was the best option in this case - rather use your backline to gain advantage and a potential try. But then with Steyn the normal reaction would be to kick - so lets leave the matter there.
All good Mike. Just one last comment on the cross kick, he could simply pass it down the backline, but if that move is thwarted by the opposition defence and a few too many seconds have elapsed, the advantage may be called over and the penalty wasted. The right move was the cross kick, as it is a quick move, if it doesn't work you come back for the penalty. Lets agree to disagree...
Very diplomatic and mature Bluebok! I agree with the cross and also the possibility of losing the advantage if too many moves are followed by the advantage given. Had it worked, the man would have been a hero and his praises sang.
Problem with the Aristokrat, he has his head stuck too far up his own arse. Other people are also allowed to have an opinion, it is after all just a message-board somewhere in cyber space and what is said here will not change the world. It will not even change how your real-life mates look or think about you as no one really knows who is who in this zoo. The problem it seems is the self image which gets tarnished if we cannot convince the world that they are wrong and we are right.
Enjoy the posts and value the difference people have - Lord it would be a menorrhoea if we all agreed all of the time..
Just popping this topic of Aristo's back to the top. As an example of almost perfect bias, it's too good to lose.
@mozart,
good work, it will also keep der aristokratt aka pieter van zyl away for another week or so.


