Tennis - the Mozarrt nightmare struck again

I know it is not aa rugby post - but could not get it posted under Other Sports because of the lack of a topic choic e.   So here goes.

Mozart has a fetish about elderly sportsmen being always better than youngsters and he always finds great enjoyment to starts threads on site where it did happen.

So let me deal with this one in turn.   After Federer was beaten in the semi of the World Finals of 2018 by Zverev - the latter went on and beat Djokovic in the final.  

I always enjoy watching tennis and I gave up on watching the game because Djokovic easily beat Zverev in the round-robin stage of the tournament.   I thought Djokovic would win easily and was surprised by the Zverev victory.  Should have watched the game.        

No Mozart

The World Finals is really the ultimate all tennis plyers try hardest to win and fact is that Zverev and some other youngsters are on the way up and the elderly on the way down.

Have nightmares about that as well.  

I'm surprised at Dale Steyn's comeback with the Proteas,35 now.Another away series win and even a T20 win down under for them.

Danie Gerber at 34 still easily outsprinted the 6 year younger Christophe Deylaud (including wiping out a 2-3m head start) in the space of 15m for his 1992 try against France. If you're good enough you're young enough. Simple as that.

The madness struck again.   I always claimed that age counts for nothing - performance does.  The fact is Mozart believe that reputation and age is the only thing that counts in team selection. 

The question is why is there a desperate fight by all tennis players to get into the Top 8 rankings to get into the EYO Finals if the players do not regard it is the final jewel in their crown to win it.  

Mozart as per normal is making an utter fool of himself about the importance of the Finals in the professional tennis world.   

Age counts for nothing, performance does? 

Beast is over 30. Conclusion? He has been poor all year. A lie.

Louw is over 30. Conclusion? He hasn't had one g ood test all year. You wouldn't even credit his work against France or the All Blacks in Pretoria. He is over 30, so it didn't happen. 

Victor was over 30. Conclusion? He lost the game to Japan singlehandedly. Another lie. His production was higher than Steph and a host of others. One of the three best Boks on the day. When I point out Kriel's error? You cry that I am picking on him. 

Then there are the numerous errors by the likes of Damian which you defend or ignore. Or lie about. I posted a video of the defensive lapses by Steph which I pointed out. I was accused of making it look like he missed tackles. 

You are too blind to ever be objective. Maybe your nose has grown to such lengths you can't maintain a close enough view of the TV. If that's the case, I apologise for being so hard on you. 

The CleverMike contingency plan, for when another debate goes awry:

This is the kind of BS to be expected from AO - he is clueless when I comes to performance.   So lets take his  stories above:-

*    I never said Beast was anything as being poor.   He became from a performance perspective a problematic player and was replaced by Erasmus when he was benched.   I tried to explain what happened after Erasmus selected him as bench player  - not a starter.   So the statement is totally false as per normal.

*     Louw had a series of poor performances  where his tackle count was way too low as a loosie and missed tackles became a serious problem.    He was slightly better in the one test against the AB's - where he came from the bench.    The non-thinkers denied some instances were players just ran past him without him even attempting a tackle.  The screams was also that Louw was an expert in possession turnovers in maul situations and fact was it only happened in 3 cases this year in all tests Louw played in.    In one test he made 2 turnovers - but he made only 2 tackles in that match.  In the case of the last test he came on from the bench he made only 1 tackle.   For a loosie that is scandalously poor.         

 *     Matfield was 38 year old and he was accused of not executing the game plan in the Japan test, - one of which was using forward domination.   He was not the only player that caused the loss against Japan - but there was in fact a string of players who caused the loss,    Another outright lie again.

I never defended mistakes made by De Allende - I just countered the lies you and Mozart especially  spouted on site what actually happened during games.   You two have turned lies and disinformation as a basis to attack him and that is unacceptable to me.   I said where De Allende really did not perform well enough and sked repeatedly who you and Mozart suggest who should replace him and NOTHING realistic came up.   If there was one Erasmus would have replaced De Allende - and the names by the two of you suggested entail proven flops already tried out and who failed.

One would expect some facts when you make postings and misrepresentations.    Please start thinking before writing BS.      

In one test he made 2 turnovers - but he made only 2 tackles in that match.

In 14 minutes. On Saturday Lood only made 2 tackles in 20 minutes and 6 carries for a pitiful 2m - yet you sung his praises.

Here's a free hint: forget about these set numbers in carries, tackles and meters you think a player should accumulate and start assessing the game dynamic for the time they were on the field. If their team has most of the possession, they're not going to have a lot of tackles to make.

Example: at the end of the Wellington All Black test, Louw made 10 tackles in 15 minutes. Why? Because the All Blacks played with 81% possession in the second half and threw wave upon wave of ball carriers at the Bok defence, especially at the death. The Bok replacements made 55 tackles between them in that game.

Contrast Scotland, who played with 35% possession in the second half. The Bok replacements made just 14 tackles between them, 3 being the highest number.

Now you can argue that they were all lazy, or you can simply argue that the game situation wasn't such that a lot of tackles were required.

Once you can start interpreting the numbers in this way, you'll be making some progress.

Pakie

If a bench player have not assessed what happened on the field of play by the time he gets onto the field = he should not be on the bench at all.   

Defense around the fringes and even wider out is a prime function of loosies and  if a player fails in that like Louw does repeatedly e is not worthy of being selected,    

You try to divert attention away from Louw (a loosie) to De Jager (a lock) .   The dynamics of the two positions are vastly different.   As far as I can remember the Scots were deep in the Springboks 22 when the props and Snyman was replaced.   The Tight 5 did more than their part to get away from that position and   the Scots was back in their own half and started a lot of ball carries to score a try.    Lot of ball carries and the  one tackle made by Louw is a disgrace.   He was from a defensive perspective also useless against the French.

Irrespective of how you try and get away from facts - the player is in fact a low work rate player and it is way past the  time to get rid of him.

Which tackles should he have made? Cite 1. 

The pre 2008 Spies was a deeply flawed player. His defence was even worse than Damian's. Rossouw was better for the WC. At that point in time Kankowksi had the edge over Spies. 

Duplication

So he should stand around and exect other players to ame tackles - dimness?

If Esterhuizen was not so much worse a defender - was Spies better than him?  

You try to divert attention away from Louw (a loosie) to De Jager (a lock).   The dynamics of the two positions are vastly different.

Meaning what with respect to tackling? For both Scotland and the Boks, the locks occupied positions 1 and 2 with regards to top tackle counts.

Mostert (#5) - 13
Snyman (#4) & Marx (#2) - 11

Gray (#5) & McInally (#2) - 15
Toolis (#4) - 12

Louw and Lood are simply convenient examples. Try seeing the bigger picture behind what I explained.

No Pakie

 The bigger picture is that loosies are supposed to have defense in their game and Louw was atrocious in that.    

And locks should make a contribution to Tight 5 play and not only take over from loosies to make tackles.

Se what Erasmus said about deficiencies on Satu rday against the Scots and find out what went wrong.

Who says that   is clueless about rugby.