The Rassie deflection

Nut case - what have we got here other than a total ignoramus.  

Rassie thought the game was in the bag. It wasn't. Even if we say he was hamstrung by circumstances beyond his control such as injuries etc, why didn't he select a stronger bench? Why were they not prepared to close out the game? Papier, Koch, Notshe should not have been in the squad. If I was one of the team, I'd have felt let down by Rassie. They fought so hard, and then gut punched by their leader.

To make matters worse. We'll be stuck with Damian for the foreseeable future. Rassie is making thi s far harder than it needs to be. 

The question is, do we have more white quotas than black? 

The two nutcases are at it again,   They are of course the self-proclaimed top world rugby analysts - so what do the coaches know about the game,   They must rather ask them their opinion and when given ignore them because to listen to what these two say - would be a disaster for any team.

I sometimes wonder why Mozart is besotted by Du Toit and AO by De Allende.  It is not rugby-related because those two fools do not know anything about the game.

I agree with Shark ....... Rassie painted himself into a corner by including only three black fellas in his starting xv ...... this from a man who declares that he fully embraces the essential transformation policies & its goal of 50% representation at next year's RWC ...... therefore his 20% contribution had to be significantly bolstered before fulltime or else the ANC colour counters would've gone apeshit.

Moz

I think everyone enjoyed what we saw from the Boks over the last two games. Right?

Between Rassie and Swys, they've got the Boks playing some nice rugby. Way better than anyone expected.

On that basis, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. 

It wasn't the substitutes that cost us. 

For me, we managed the last 10 minutes ever so poorly. We should have kept ball in hand instead of nervously kicking up field and handing over possession. 

We needed to play smart, keep the ball and draw a penalty. Then kick to the corner and camp there.

It was our on field leadership that let us down more than anything else. 

Rassie did nothing different to what he's done previously....and another thing, it was the ideal moment with regards to the scoreline to back his substitutes. His hand was forced in subbing injured and tired players.

It was a tenuous moment in the game when the All Blacks were growing in desperation. Willemse has twice shown he can't handle pressure. Notshe has been shown up already. Why the intent to run? What were their instructions? Rassie blew the test. That the bench was weak falls on him, noons else. They weren't all black either. So we can't use the quota card. Let's just hope he learns from this. 

This is hilarious - the amount of BS incredible.   So first let us summarize the AO statement about  "Willemse has twice shown he can't handle pressure."

So lets analyze the two tests and see what really happened:-

Argentine test - Came from bench at minute 63 - playing time - 17 -18 minutes

Since I did not see any signs of pressure handling deficiency  I looked at his stats and thee is nothing there indicating any pressure problem - ZERO.   The Argentines did not score any points after Willemse came on - all stats are positive.

This pressure story is one real BS invention of AO.

AB test - Came from, bench at minute 66 - playing time 14 minutes 

Again I looked this time at the game and saw ZERO sign of succumbing to pressure.  

It is obviously needless to ask where there were signs of pressure since OA will not be able to substantiate anything.   In his normal style he dreamed this up and will continue spreading the BS on site.   A player on field have had 31 minutes of game time on test level - 

*    he made no handling errors and his kicks were effective;  and

*    he looked excellent when he attacked the gain line.

He is accused that he did not pin point the landing place of an extremely long kick downfield - and the resultant weird bounce gave the AB's the benefit.   That may be poor judgement on his part - but there has been hundreds of cases where the players were  not in the right position to handle such a kick . HOWEVER, THAT HAD ZERO TO DO WITH SUCCUMBING TO PRESSURE.

Then we have the latest Mozart delirium.   In the Australia test the week before Erasmus did not make all the substitutes available.   Whatever substitues he did make was very late in the game.   In this case he substituted Le Roux and De Klerk  and Mozart went ballistic.   When it came out the two players both were injured he first of all try and get out of the hole he dug for himself and now he jumped back into it again.   Has the man no honour at all? 

The above is the kind of BS  these two members spread on site and even though it is funny initially - it became a situation where one has to pity them and ask a serious question.   Do these two know anything about the game of rugby at all and secondly do they never understand the circumstances under which the game was played?               

@ Moz

You're right. On here, one forgets at times that two things are allowed to exist and both be true at the same time

Still, subbies or no subbies, we should not have kicked posession away in the last ten minutes. That played directly into the ABs hands, pun intended.

I was mostly impressed by the ruck speed. That is what enabled us to peg them in their own half. It allowed us to catch their backs out of position and put smarts kicks into the right areas behind them. Completely the opposite of what we've done in the past, where we played the slowest game possible and then tried to win the kicking game by hoping they'd drop the ball or that we would kick it fu rther than them.

Glad Aug brought up the ruck stat last week since. Excellent timing since we got an almost full presentation this past weekend of exactly what the benefits associated with it are. We gained ground at will and almost entirely nulified the ABs. Something nobody has managed in yonks.

So indeed, it was a more traidtional game but it was also a touch Lion'esque in its execution.

Faf was too - one cannot have a player hobbling round on the field of play.

Who else was left on the bench to allow for a further backline replacement?   If he took off Dyantyi as well there would not have been any replacement and th team would have to play with 14 players.   

Where has  your logic gone?  

No Mozart Jantjies came on from the desk before the final score,  You are a nutcase here again  = he replaced de Allende.  So your whole theory goes belly-up again.  

AO and Pakie

You both claimed that Willemse cannot handle pressure,  I asked you to explain your statement = since there was no proof whatsoever of it happening.   Why are yopu running for cover - cowards?

I know that as well and did not need to be told what happened.   This thread was started by you as per normal with you on Du Toit.    Since then you have ran for cover constantly and there are now two additional threads covering more of less the same topic - why did that happen.    It became clear you ran for cover on the other sites and you jump from thread to thread.     

Your anti-Erasmus mania is getting the better of you and it is time we get a break from he BS you splash all over the site.       

Mike, you can speak to me politely, and I may humor you. If you prefer to persist with this ridiculous tough guy act and the insults, I'll happily ignore you. 

You can also start by showing me where I claimed that Willemse can't handle pressure.

"I could not see any signs of pressure, so I looked at the stats" 

This is why the press have given him a free pass.... He has ticked the transformation box. Results are not the priority in the brave new SA.

That is a big one BokBF. Very sad, but true. However, the public outcry won't die down if the team does suffer for such reasons. These political buffoons will only use the coach as a fall guy. It's a fools errand.