MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Sept 2013, 17:29#2
I would tend to leave it to the coach. They don't always get it right, but this is one of those moments where Heineke, through consistency, has given himself the option to be a little creative.
-
That said BBF you suggest four changes. A few comments. I like the fact that you have kept our loosies intact. But you start Coenie and Steph. Apparently the Coenie change comes because you think Jannie had a terrible test. He missed two open field tackles, but I rather suspect Conrad Smith would have skinned Coenie as well. And our scrum stood like a rock with 7 men until Coenie came on after which, it didn't. We also dominated the AB scrum at the start of the match. The tighthead had to be doing something right!
-
And I'm not sure launching Steph into tests at this point is good for the Boks or for Steph. Much is made of how Kruger lacks physicality, but as a body type, Steph is much closer to Kruger than Etzebeth. I don't think he is a physical type although he tries to play a high tempo physical game. It may work against the Wallabies....I don't think it will against NZ....at least, not yet.
-
Subbing F du Preez for Pienaar is a no brainer, so that leaves us with Lambie for Kirchner. A better tackler/ decision maker for a faster, more physical player who provides us with high ball options. Without Kirchner on the park we don't score the try that Lambie finished so well. I could go either way on this one.
-
The one other change I'd consider is bringing in Serfontein for JJ, and moving Jean to 13. Serfontein is a highly competitive guy who wants to get involved. JJ has done nothing since the first Bargie blow out. I think he will do better at home on our hard fields....but I have never liked players that disappear....you have to find the ball.
-
So I would sub du Preez and Serfontein for Pienaar and JJ and feel I have increased the warrior quotient in the team.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Sept 2013, 17:52#3
I am not going to even try and select a team from that miserable squad of Meyer - leave it to him and hope we can survive against the Wallabies and not lose by to big a margin against the All Blacks.
Mozart - the great stats man - really ignore stats when it fits his copybook. The Prima Donna said our scrum was firm with Jannie and Steenlamp on the field - but it was anything but firm - the two gave away a total of 4 scrumming penalties. Just ignore facts when it can be powdered over by generalities. O yes and Coenie would have missed the tackle against Conrad Smith - another dubious assumption.
The prima donna is at it again and his generalizations are flowing thick and fast - so it is better to ignore his constant harping unrelated to facts and see what happens over the next two weeks.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Sept 2013, 21:37#5
OOM missed the penalty on Coenie because he was omitted from the ESPN stats page for some reason. That went woosh....right over his head. As did our scrumming performance a man down.....most scrums in that position against the ABs would have collapsed. We had 6 scrums on our feed and won 6 according to the stats....NZ had 7 and lost 2. How's that for stats you dumb old coot.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Sept 2013, 23:25#8
Mozart and Ceradyne
Go to ESPN scrum and see for yopurself. Prima Donna idiots - for some reason or another I could not find any stats on Oosthuizen on that site. What I can remember was that the penalty blamed on Oosthuizen was actually the fault of fat Steenkamp. Cannot account for the discrepancy in that ESPN scrum stats.
Now go home and start thinking - but keep to facts in the process.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Sept 2013, 00:33#13
Just a pity that when JJ faced the tiny de Jongh, Juan kept powering through him. Every tackle he made on de Jongh required help from another player. Fact!
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Sept 2013, 01:20#16
The only reason JJ caught him was Ndungane partially stopped deJongh. And face it Dave, JJ has done nothing of note in tests, except run through wide open space....Basson has done the same thing and so has Nokwe. Their problem was they didn't enjoy contact....nor does JJ. But somewhere along the line he will be fed the ball with 40 metres to go and no tacklers and he will run like Harold Abrahams and you can tell me I'm full of it. For the moment he remains a damp squibb at test level.,
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Sept 2013, 04:01#20
De Jongh would have scored that try with ease....hell in his CC winning try he beat Coetzee, Daniels with power and stepped Mvovo as if he was planted. That still doesn't make de Jongh an ideal test 13....but nor do a few tries against weak opposition say much about JJ.
-
In the matches where he scored his four tries the Boks destroyed the opposition by 213 points to 63. In the next three matches the Boks were ahead 75 to 58, more typical of tests, and JJ disappeared. Coincidence? Maybe....but I don't put any real credence in running rampant when the opposition is non existent.
-
If he makes a crucial contribution in a contested test, I'll be the first to sing his praises. I go with the flow, but till now the flow ain't going.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
24 Sept 2013, 06:44#22
Mozart
De Jongh, De Jomngh, De Jongh - have you really gone bananas???? Must have since you fantasize about him continually. What is wrong with you?
He had three test opportunities last year. Against the Aussies in Pretoria he destroyed an excellent try scoring opportunity immediately after coming off the bench. In the Scottish test he destroyed an early attacking move by fumbling a ball and then afterwards did squad in the test. In the Twickenham test he went AWOL or have you conveniently forgot his stats for that test. If that is not enough to destroy his test career and prove that he is not a test level player - one wonders what is.
After having had a disaster in defence in Super 15 this year - with the worst defence stats of any center playing at 13 for any SA Squad - you fabricated a tale where in the Super 15 clash between the Stormers and the Bulls De Jongh dragged Engelbrecht 5 meters every time he tried to tackle him. After it was proven to be a complete fabrication and statistically impossible - you claimed that you did not really mean it. Now back to the original fabrication with a new angle - De Jongh (the timy useless attacker normally thrown around like a rag doll by opposition centers) was not brought down in tackles by Engelbrecht - a new fabrication angle but equally false.
After playing in a number of CC games - where he was absolutely useless - the real center work be done by De Allende - Meyer was nuts enough to get him back into the squad - obviously because he needs another affirmative action player - and you are nuts enough to support him in rugby terms.
I really expect better from you - not this kind of drivel you produce when you deal with this absolutely useless player. He is NOT test material and that has been proved by the opportunities given to him last year. When will you ever learn? I suppose never - because you are so prejudiced about players that you make disparaging remarks on players you dislike - even though you never even saw matches you discredit players - hanging on to proven flops in players you like as if they are indispensable.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
24 Sept 2013, 07:56#23
Just a pity that such a "useless" player who is "tossed around" by the opposition should choose to change all that when he plays the Sharks. Let's see, he has swotted Keegan Daniel, your man Coetzee and the powerful Fransie on the way to two try scoring/match winning performances against your guppies. Decimated is the word that comes to mind when I think about what de Jongh has done to the Sharks.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
24 Sept 2013, 09:02#24
Mozart
Do you remember that the match referred to was on CC level? Catrakilis created space for him amd Coetzee and Daniel fluffed the defensive effort. A once in five years effort and now suddenly he is a test player.
Yet when other players perform well on CC level - you are the person who comes down on them as proving nothing because of the CC level - that is without ever watching the CC games yourself.
There is no comment on the factual other statements made by me - why not?
.
