The defense situation iro backibne players over the past two months

Defense was often a topic for discussion on this site - but less sp in the media.  In most cases it was used by some members in a desperate move to discredit some players snf it was often used to advocate selection of players with a worse defensive record than those attacked by them.   
Take for instance the case of De Allende.  In the case of De Allende he attempted 21 tackles in the Aussie test and missed 6 of those tackle attempts.   In fact the misses were made up of tackle attempts few other players would ever have attempted, but it left him with a missed tackle ratio of 28% - which admittedly is too high.   However, he is since improved from a statistical point of view to an average of circa 16% - which is a much more realistic figure.
Now lets get back to the players on Saturday last and have a look at what they produced:-
Kirchner   -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 2 - missed tackle ratio  33,3%Mvovo     -  tackles made 5 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  16,6%Kriel        -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  20%De Allende - tackles made 6 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  14,3%Habana    -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  20%Lambie     -  tackles made 7 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  12,5%Pienaar    -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  20% 
Thee are other aspects as well and those relates to the quality of tackles and there some players are better than others.  There can be various scenarios used in looking at quality of tackles such as how effective are tackles in preventing the ball carrier teams in recovery of balls for further use - a player tackled backwards are clearly disadvantaging the opposing team.  How easy or difficult is off-loads in tackle situations?  Does it happen that tackles result in ball possession loss by the ball carrier?   Some defenders do have a better record than others affecting opposition ball usage or loss during and after tackles have been made.  
However, to get back to Saturday - in essence it is accepted that players will miss tackles and the general accepted norm is a ratio of less than 15% as reflecting good performance in that field - with a ratio of between 15% and 20% being more or less average - where improvement is necessary and above the latter where the record is unacceptable.  B ased on that scenario the poorest defender on Saturday was Kirchner.            

 Break down those Allende stats by game Perv.

"the misses were made up of tackle attempts few other players would ever have attempted"

Seriously?

Pakie
I am afraid that 21 tackle attempts by a center in one game indicates too many attempts - the normal ratio is at maximum 12 attempts per game for a player in the center position.  De Allende was involved in way too many attempts and in some cases rushing around tackling forwards and backline players all over the show.  Some tackles happened when he ran from making one tackle and then trying to make a seond one from the side - it was way to difficult to attempt.  There were a number of those throughout the game.  
The moment the number of tackles became within reasonable levels his stats improved drastically.      

 Dr Goebbels
You are at liberty to come up with the stats for all four matches played - so do it - but make sure you do it correctly please.  

Nonsense Mike. I just worked through that game and my stats are 19 attempts and 6 misses. Here are the 6 misses. They are all straight misses through his channel. None of them happened while he "ran from making one tackle and then trying to make a second". Nor were they "tackle attempts few other players would ever have attempted". Most of the time he was beaten on the inside step in his channel.

29:23 - Folau beats him on the outside
40:40 - Kuridrani beats him on the inside
50:45 - Kuridrani beats him on the inside
56:53 - Folau beats him on the inside
69:41 - Toomua beats him on the inside
81:33 - Kuridrani beats him to reach the tryline for the winning score

Everything you said above about the nature of his missed tackles you sucked out of your thumb.

 Pakie
You photos are misleading - where was De Allende immediately before those runs commenced.   In the six cases you mentioned it is evident that  none was head-on-head tackles - in all six cases when attempts were made De Allende came from the side to attempt the tackles.
With respect you said there were 19 tackle attempts - ESPN said 21 and you may have missed two.   The question remains - what is normally the tackle count in the case of inside centers?      

"Photos are misleading", bla bla bla, the same old defense as ever. That's why I have time stamps, so you can review the footage yourself. I have nothing to prove here except to relay the facts. I have no bias against De Allende, but the nonsense you spouted up there about "tackles few other players would have attempted" set me off because I just can't abide a flatout lie like that.

As for where he was, he was in the defensive line, that's where he was. In not one instance was he running from a previous tackle to make another. All of them except the first were head-on tackles on a player directly attacking his channel. Unless of course you expect the opposition to run straight into him instead of trying to beat him.

Pakie
Sorry but in no case was any of your photos an indication of Head-on-head misses.  And you refused to answer my comments on teh number of tackles attempted by De Allende - you ignore it completely.   
Sorry to disagree - but there is no indication that De Allende missed any head-on-head tackles.  Only one of the tackles you showed was against the opposition inside center and the player he was lined up to defend against.  Kuridrani played at 13, Folau at 15.  A player is lined up to defend against an opponent and if he has to come from the side to make a tackle of a player other than his direct opponent it is problematic and very difficult to achieve.
   

 Dr Goebels here are the stats game by game as you requested:
Australia      -   21 attempted  - 15 made - 6 missed  -  mtr  =  28,57%New Zealand -  12 attempted  -  10 made - 2 missed  - mtr   =  16,67%Argentina     -    9 attempted  -    7 made - 2 missed  - mtr   =  22,22%Argentina     -    7 attempted  -    6 made - 1 missed  - mtr   =  14,28%
Average 4 games - 49 attempted  - 38 made - 11 missed - mtr =   22,44%
The first game was totally unacceptable - the other three, where the situation improved despite your claims to the contrary was much better.  28 attempts 5 misses - mtr -  17,85% is much nearer to the mark it should be and showed a major improvement.
 

 "Sorry to disagree - but there is no indication that De Allende missed any head-on-head tackles."
Exactly. That was because he was beaten and could, therefore, not make "head-on-head" tackles. 
29:23 - Folau beats him on the outside
40:40 - Kuridrani beats him on the inside
50:45 - Kuridrani beats him on the inside
56:53 - Folau beats him on the inside
69:41 - Toomua beats him on the inside
81:33 - Kuridrani beats him to reach the tryline for the winning score

QED

Why are the number of tackle attempts a factor? If a player runs at him, is he supposed to stand aside and let him pass so his tackle attempts don't exceed 20?

I have clearly shown that you make stuff up with no respect for what actually happened on the field. I am not interested in engaging you in this pointless face saving exercise, where you are just continuing to make up even more stuff (as in your last paragraph) .

Pakie
If players are lined up to defend against their direct opponent - they have to shift their defending to another opponent running a different line and that is definitely not easy.  Was De Allende lined up to defend against the no 12 - or to defend against the 13 and the 15?  He was obviously marking the no 12 - not the other two players you dwell on.   In one case mentioned by you if he went early for Folau - all the latter had to do was to pass the ball to the number 12 and a try would have been scored, with the blame than be put on De Allende for doing wrong again.
This type of thing as to interpretation of single photos in a game is really a silly joke and that is a fact as well.  But you believe it is the alpha and omega - so you are entitled to your views and that is a fact as well.   By the way a tackle is only beaten when an actual tackle attempt is made - if there is no such an attempts made there is no missed tackle.  The tackle misses of De Allende is NOT the six photos shown by you - there is no clarity in some of the photos whether a tackle attempt in fact were made.          
Obviously the number of tackles is a factor in any game and does include the fact that in essence the role of the tackler is important in that case.   If he tries to make too many tackles there is always a bigger chance of him missing tackles against players other than the direct opponent he is supposed to defend against in the first instance than there is otherwise.    This is exactly the case here.  The majority of missed tackles - 5 out of 6 - was not against the direct opponent of De Allende, but against other players on the field of play.  That is part of the scenario why a player who does something like that and tries to cover too many gaps in the game will end up with  missed tackles. 
This story about De Allende is a problem.  I said clearly he must be more accurate in defending play after the Aussie test - but that it is not a crisis as made out to be by you and by the two village idiots.  It is something to be corrected and in the last three tests there was a marked improvement, which none of you lot wants to admit. 
However, the same attack was not launched when Kriel had a worse tackle record in the AB test and when De Villiers were poor in the test against Argentina the week before.   It is all only De Allende that gets blamed for defensive problems.  This reeks of another personal agenda campaign and that will never be admitted by you lot.
       

"Kirchner   -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 2 - missed tackle ratio  33,3%"

Is there in reason in particular why Willie Le Roux's tackling is always avoided like the plague. Yes, I know that the quoted figures are in respect of the last test, but I have tried to engage the issue of Le Roux's defence for ages but the topic  is always side-stepped.

 For some odd reason,  both Willie and Pollard seems to be exempt of criticism of their tackling performances. 

I dont understand those stats? The % figure seems wrong.Are fantasy rugby stats counted differently?

Kirchner   -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 2 - missed tackle ratio  33,3% I  thought 2 out of 4 was 50%
Pienaar    -tackles made 4 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  20% 
I thought 1 out of 4 was 25%? 
Mvovo     -  tackles made 5 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  16,6%Kriel        -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  20%De Allende - tackles made 6 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  14,3%Habana    -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  20%Lambie     -  tackles made 7 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  12,5%
Pienaar    -  tackles made 4 - tackles missed 1 - missed tackle ratio  20% 

It's tackles missed out of total tackles attempted....not  out of tackles made.

 DbDraad

Status: Senior player
Posts: 2623 RE: The defense situation iro backibne players over the past two months
August 17, 2015, 13:43:13

 For some odd reason,  both Willie and Pollard seems to be exempt of criticism of their tackling performances. 

Eggzagerly.

 The three Village idiots have one target only - De Allende.  because they want the questionable De Villiers at 12 - whether he is match-fit or not - or the disgustingly poor Fransie Steyn - because despite the fact that he does not do anything of note ever on the field of play, his mere presence frightens the wits out of opponents and the sank onto their knees in humble submission.  
That is the BS we hear on this site constantly so why is there anything better to be expected from them?

Mike, I didn't even read your response above because I know what it will contain. It boils down to this:

"In fact the misses were made up of tackle attempts few other players would ever have attempted"

Lie.

"Some tackles happened when he ran from making one tackle and then trying to make a seond one from the side"

Lie

And then it continues, even after the evidence with this:

"in all six cases when attempts were made De Allende came from the side to attempt the tackles"

Lie

This was not meant to be a campaign against De Allende, but simply to demonstrate that Mike pretends to be the voice of fairness and unbiased reason, but really just makes stuff up as he goes along either to put down players he doesn't rate, or to protect those he rates. Not one thing he said to play down De Allende's missed tackles was true.

Players miss tackles. All of them. Pollard a lot. Willie as well. Just admit it then without the fabrications for excuses. That sinks the credibility of anything you say on this forum.

clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 18674 RE: The defense situation iro backibne players over the past two months
August 17, 2015, 14:46:37

 The three Village idiots have one target only - De Allende.  because they want the questionable De Villiers at 12 - whether he is match-fit or not - or the disgustingly poor Fransie Steyn - because despite the fact that he does not do anything of note ever on the field of play, his mere presence frightens the wits out of opponents and the sank onto their knees in humble submission.  

That is the BS we hear on this site constantly so why is there anything better to be expected from them?

Who said anything about De Allende? I was talking about the skewed "a.nalysis" about Kirchner's defence.

 What is skewed about Kirchner's tackle stats - he attempted 6 tackles and missed two of those - so his missed tackle ratio is 33,3%.   What is skewed about that?   It is very, very real.   

 Pakie
Have you gone bonkers/  The lies you state is in evidence is absolute crap.  That is what actually happened before and during the incidents you said happened.  In all cases bar one it is evident that De Allende came from the side to make the tackles.
You have ignored the fact that five of the missed tackles stemmed from tackles on players he did not face in the first instance - you are talking crap.  
Your statement of dubious to start off with and I consider it below my dignity to respond to unfounded statements.     

Mike is a total liar. Hell in one case I caught him lying about Adi Jacobs, boldly telling us what a terrible game he had....when he wasn't even playing that day.
On any of t he prior sites we have all used, his posturing, lying and embarrassing exaggeration of his roles in various events would have been treated with contempt.

Oddly on this Board he is viewed as a harmless old topple. 

 clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 18678 RE: The defense situation iro backibne players over the past two months
August 17, 2015, 15:55:34  What is skewed about Kirchner's tackle stats - he attempted 6 tackles and missed two of those - so his missed tackle ratio is 33,3%.   What is skewed about that?   It is very, very real.


So are Willie Le Roux's and you know just as well as I do that you always do everything in your power to address that. Just like you are attempting to do again right now. That is what is skewed, mate. One of your favourite topics is Morne Steyn's 7/4 of the 2013 Ellis Park test but you have avoided addressing Willie's 0/5 in the same test, for two years now. And then you accuse others of selective "attacks" on players that they "hate"...........

Ceradunce
I have never hidden the tackle stats of le Roux and never covered it up in any way.  I have always said that it is unacceptable.
However, there is one difference between the two players mentioned - Le Roux is a vastly better attacking player than Kirchner.  le Roux create attacking opportunities which Kirchner is incapable of.
When looking at a player both defense and attacking abilities should be considered.  If a player is poor in both - like is found in the case of Kirchner - there is NO condoning factor to offset defense deficiencies against.
   

 Willie Le Roux is a dangerous player. There is no doubt about it. The problem is that he could be as dangerous to his own side as he is to the opponents. I have had my doubts about him for some time now. The same with Pollard. When was the last time that Le Roux really impressed? For every good move he pulls, he makes a few balls-ups to counter that .

Dr Goebbels
I made a mistake about what happened 7 years ago and apologized for making it.  You lie every time you write on this site and then you blame other people for lying.
Whatever I have done in my life I said I will give you the information for you to check up with credible witnesses, but you are two big a coward to contact me and get the references.   That makes your lying even worse - you desperate fool.
I have only had differences with you, ceradunce and DF on this site - I get along just finely with everybody else.   I have the utmost contempt for you - since our last effort to improve relationships.   You broke the agreement we reached despite repeated requests to get back on a better footing.  How can one anybody rely on the self-possessed and egocentric piece of BS you are?
Ceradunce is like my Jack Russell I call Skaduwee - he follows me wherever I go.  His only function on this site is to respond to messages Dave or I post - for the rest bhe is as empty as the Big Hoe in Kimberley and a nice lapdog for you.  DF is just a joke - his ideas about rugby is laughable and funny because in a way it is unorthodox, but totally theoretical.
There is a huge difference between DF and you.  He knows something about rugby - you don't.     

 

Not once Perv...not once have you proved I have lied about anything.  

Dr Goebbels
Lets start with just one - the 16 calls made by De Jager - that was an outright lie.  I can add to that list every time you write anything on this site.   

 clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 18685 RE: The defense situation iro backibne players over the past two months
August 17, 2015, 16:20:56

Ceradunce

I have never hidden the tackle stats of le Roux and never covered it up in any way.

I haven't said anything to that effect. I said that you ignores it. Every single time that your attention was drawn to it you responded with your infamous sneaking-away-like-a-wet-dream-with-your-tail-between-your-legs-manoeuvre.

The second barking dog appears to support his leader. So HM per called all the phase runs and the leader of the pack had no role in his getting the ball. Man Dave you are so thick I could hit you with a two by four and not leave a dent.

Eighteen times the ball could have gone to either Etzebeth or Lomp and you would have us believe HM wanted it to go to Lomp 16 times....,Ive got a farm in the mud I'd like to sell you chump.  

 That 9 times is an outright lie Dr Goebbels invented after the issue of line-out calls were clarified.  There is no evidence it ever took place.  It remains a lie - irrespective of how you tried to wiggle out of being caught out. 
The only calls a lock made is in line-outs - there is no way a specific player makes pod calls as this village idiot calls it.  The decision who to pass the ball to rest with the first receiver - normally the scrummie or another forward - nobody else.
This is a lie and it remains a lie.  To make matters worse the lie is repeated in posts on a virtually daily basis.
   

 Lomp ran 9 times in phase play. With Lomp playing it was 16 Lomp ...2 Etzebeth. With Victor playing it was 9 Victor and 9 Etzebeth. Spot the difference.
Not a lie, a fact. Actually a quantifiable fact....documented by an independent source.

Bluster and accusations don't trump facts.

 So Moz,  are you saying Lood deliberately marginalized Eben for his own glory? 

Dr Goebbels
Because De Jager carried the balls 9 times - does not mean he made calls for the ball to be passed to him - you filthy liar.  He may have been what the scrummie or another player considered  to be in a better position to carry the ball further so the passer passed the ball to him.
Did you hear any of the pod calls as you called them being made by De Jager?  
You never had prove of the 16 calls you said was made by De Jager - it was a lie you conjured up to discredit De Jager. 
Bluster won't help you in this case - you were caught lying and you remain a liar despite all the efforts to wiggle out of it. 
     

 "..................- you filthy liar. "
PSG....................