FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  The reports on this match were very shallow.

The reports on this match were very shallow.

Started by Mozart15 REPLIES325 VIEWS· 19 Jul 2015, 04:36
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2015, 04:36
#1
19 Jul 2015, 04:36#1

Firstly the two tries at the end.

 

 

The Bok scrum broke under their poles as Sio rolled up Malherbe putting Schalk under pressure and leading to a 5 metre scrum. The actual try by Hooper came because Lomp swallowed the dummy leaving a gap.

 

 

On to the try at the end by Kuridrani. Reinach put Oz on the attack with a woefully short up and under. We battled away manfully and actually regained possession. We had 30 seconds to negotiate and Reinach passes to a pod right in the teeth of the Aussie defence, we get penalized and they get a lineout. We defend well until De Allende peels out of the ruck and races outside Louw.....but leaves a massive gap!!!!!. Kuridrani runs straight into the gap and through de Allende and Louw holds on desperately but it's futile.

 

 

This game turned when the front row changed....Slipper and Sio owned Malherbe. Heinke wan't great but the main issue was at tighthead. And the kicking onto Folau was a death wish.

 

 

Willie contrary to reports made two brilliant open field tackles on Folau and Horne.

 

Kriel looks fine at 13....an exciting find. De Allende does many good things, but his defensive nous is non existent. His positioning is wrong and he is beaten on the inside far too often.

 

 

Pollard had a mixed game, but we lost a lot of physicality when Lambie replaced him....this boy is class. And our only flyhalf who is a threat ball in hand at this level.

 

 

Pienaar wasn't great, but better than Raainacht.

 

In the forwards Etzebeth, Bismarck  and Schalk were massive. Coetzee and Louw were both good. Jannie and the Beast scrummed superbly.

 

 

And of the subs only Lood had a long innings.....I expected more given the praise I saw on here all day. He was fine, but a notch below Etzebeth and towards the end he started loping from breakdown to breakdown without getting engaged....an old fault. Still one of his better games.

 

 

The big casualty today is Malherbe whose reputation as a big scrum ager took a hit and cost us the game.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 05:01
#2
19 Jul 2015, 05:01#2
Mozart  
Balls as per normal.  The scrum improved when Malherbe came on in the first half when Du Plessis went off for the injury.  The second half scrumming problems had nothing at all to do with Malherbe and everything to do with Van der Merwe, who were penalized twice for illegal scrumming.   Mozart concentrate on Malherbe - not the fact that Van der Merwe was penalized for poor scrumming.  
Mozart find an excuse to attack De Jager and a very flimsy one at that.  That was to be expected from him.  The fact that De Jager came on to replace  Matfield was a huge improvement in the game and added value to all aspects where Matfield routinely failed badly.  If Matfield stayed on - the loss would have been substantially bigger.    However, the real problem is that Matfield should never have been anywhere near the team - a decent lock should have been.   De Jager was out for months - this was his second game after early injury in Super 15.  I would have no problem if he was replaced in the second half by another lock - but the BS selection of Matfield caused the lock position on the field of play and on the bench to be a huge problem.  
I laugh at how you - the supreme biased idiot - search for reasons to find fault with players you dislike and keep tried to make a totally BS statement by saying he was better than Reinach.
The big casualty - that became clear to everyone - is Matfield.  He was shown up badly by the massive game of De Jager when he replaced him after Matfield contributed zero while he was on the field of play.  Even Naas Botha said he is turning the Springbok Tight 5 into a Tight 4.    

  
  
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2015, 05:09
#3
19 Jul 2015, 05:09#3
I don't look for reasons to find fault with anybody Tokkie....I report facts. Every statement I made is based on things that happened in the match, including the two tries at the end.

What is looking for reasons to find fault is suggesting that Matfield who very rarely plays less than 80 minutes, was  an injury risk. Palpable nonsense.
DE
DennyCaptain12,893 posts
19 Jul 2015, 07:19
#4
19 Jul 2015, 07:19#4

 "The big casualty today is Malherbe whose reputation as a big scrumager took a hit and cost us the game."


He struggled, should have been penalized a few times for boring at an angle.


The bench apart from De Jager was a total disaster. Even Strauss had a shocker.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 09:05
#5
19 Jul 2015, 09:05#5
 Mozart
That is absolute crap - you never deal with facts, but imagined facts.  In your whole story you dealt with three players where you nitpicked - De Jager, Reinach and Malherbe.   Why only those three?  What mistakes did others made that was worse than those three that you ignored ?
Your comments were as to be expected from you.  If ever there were shallow comments - yours were.   
    
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2015, 13:20
#6
19 Jul 2015, 13:20#6

There is a reluctance among fans to be honest when the facts are contrary to the desired plot line. Yesterday we had three good examples.

 

1) Plot line....Victor isn't physical enough.

 

So whoever replaces Victor has to be massively physical and have a great game. Lomp wasn't bad up until the last 10 minutes. But he did nothing exceptional...meanwhile Etzebeth was terrific, but hardly received the same accolodes. And he wasn't the player dummied for a crucial try.....that was Lomp.

 

 

2) Plot line.....Jannie isn't up to it anymore Malherbe should be playing.

 

 

So here we have some honesty....the fans admit Jannie had a good game. but there is silence about Malherbe. But Malherbe was a massive scrumming weakness and his poor scrumming led directly to the Hooper try.

 

 

3) Plot line.....de Allende is our new 12 for the WC, Jean can stay retired.

 

 

Maybe. De Allende is a force as an attacking centre. But as we saw in the last 20 minutes defence is crucial. The thing Jean brings is structure and positioning. So often in situations where Kuridrani scored Jean would shoot up and he would have got man and ball. Instead de Allende presented him with a barnyard gap and missed the tackle to boot. He is a great runner, but a work in progress as a defensive leader.

 

 

Look beyond the desired plot line and you will see the truth.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 13:35
#7
19 Jul 2015, 13:35#7
 Mozart
Are you not ashamed of writing this type of rubbish on this site?  De Jager was praised by everybody for a sterling effort - a tight 5 contribution miles better than Matfield ever achieved since his return last year.   He was good in scrums, in mauls organisation and in carrying balls in traffic - things Matfield is totally incapable of.   If you have not seen that you must be blind.  Then there is the tackle issue - when De Jager tackles a player he makes strong and decisive tackles - when Matfield does it - it is weak ones with the player always going forward in the tackle and the teammates of the ball carrier have no problem in recovering of the ball.  Lastly to blame De Jager for that last try is a joke - your fellow village idiot blames De Allende for that try.   better co-ordination with your fellow village idiot is essential.
Jannie was vastly better yesterday than all season - but that was particularly noticeable after the replacement of Matfield.  Our scrumming remains below par with Matfield in the Tight 5.  That was proven again yesterday - the real problem in o0ur scrumming is and will always be Matfield.
Look objectively beyond the BS of our resident village idiots and you will see the truth.   
             
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
19 Jul 2015, 13:50
#8
19 Jul 2015, 13:50#8
Damian is a runner with the mindset of beating you on the outside. He is more a wing by mentality. He does some good things, but his defence is the worst I have ever seen. Every kind of mistake you can make he does every game. Adi couldn't tackle strongly but his positional play was sound. Damian walks out of alignment, turns his back on attackers, reacts to everything and we paid a heavy price for it. Jean isn't just an option, he is miles better than Damian! He straightens the attack for a start and has line integrity. But most of all, we need Frans who is better than both. On attack Damian is not doing what a 13 can and must do. Just because you like to beat the outside gap it doesn't mean you are doing your job as a 12 properly or well. He is no better than he was last year before he was dropped. In fact, at 12, he is far worse than he was at 13 last year for the Boks.
As per Lood. Moz, we have to give Lood credit, he is very strong. More forceful than either Eben or Victor. But that does not necessarily make him a better player. He still seems a bit on the passive side. But we'll have to wait and see how he copes against strong packs, though Australia played a very physical game. 
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 13:58
#9
19 Jul 2015, 13:58#9
 Desert Disaster
The worst defense I have ever seen of a backline player was that of Morne last year in the Perth test and in the Stade Francais game - the last one.  In Perth he missed 46% of attempted tackles - in the Stade Francais game 55%.  That is a record that Francois Steyn tried to emulate - but has never been successful - his worst defense stats in games have been 50%, with a second worse of 37%.
De Allende yesterday made 21 tackle attempts of which 15 were good tackles - very effective.  That represents a missed tackle ratio of 28%.  Not good enough in my book - but definitely not near to the disasters of poor Morne and Fat Fransie.   
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
19 Jul 2015, 14:12
#10
19 Jul 2015, 14:12#10
Actually, all the tackles Morne missed were from scrambling defence. All but two where he had to dart out wide and defend wide spacing between 10-12. Those are the real facts. Only one tackle did I feel he genuinely should have done better. It was in the second half where he pressed up field after a bomb by another Bok. Folau attacked the gap in between him and another because he over commited on shutting him down out wide. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
19 Jul 2015, 14:52
#11
19 Jul 2015, 14:52#11
Actually it had stuff all to do with Malherbe and everything to do with Heinke v/d Merwe in that scrum, Strauss the previous scrum and an illegal hit on the engage by the Aussies in the one before.....it would probably help to have actually watched the game.
Wow and the try was because Lood was covering the outside......talk about manipulating the facts to suite the players you don't rate.
Fact is when Malherbe replaced Jannie with Bismark and Beast still on board the Bok scrum was at its best.....marching the Oz scrum back with interest, telling us Malherbe is better than Jannie....something we have known all year.
As for Lood his physicality with ball in hand and in defence was a revelation  compared to the powder puff crap we have had to endure from the sad excuse of a lock in Matfield....all 105kgs of him. 
Moz your take on the game is a load of utter shit....for a start you make no mention  of how good Lood was which in itself leaves your take on the game about as credible as your take on de Kock being responsible for our WC exit.....load of crap
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 14:59
#12
19 Jul 2015, 14:59#12
 Desert disaster 
It is amazing how you always find the same excuses for the tackle deficiencies of Morne Steyn.  In Perth - 15 attempted tackles of which he missed 7.  In the Stade Francais match - 15 attempted tackles of which he missed 8.   All the 15 tackles he missed in those two games were from "scrambling defence" - blaas my siel!!!!!!!!  The lie is really the top one eve4r on this board.   
Morne Steyn has one asset as a flyhalf - kicking at goal.  For the rest he is not a flyhalf's ass - or perhaps he is.  One of the worst flyhalfs who ever played for the Springboks and that by the proverbial mile.  He has no ball sense - cannot read games and take decisions - with the result he has to be told in advance what to do in matches - the epitome of a robotic flyhalf.  When circumstances is different from what he was told in advance - he flopped badly by not doing what really is required.  He never attacks a gain line - his kicking game out of hand is putrid and represents aimless and inaccurate kicking - his passing game is slow (because he routinely stood too deep in the pocket),  
Defenders routinely ignore his existence - because of his lack of attacking ability - fan out to cover aimless kicks and concentrate their defense on the poor 12 - who has to take Morne's hospital passes.  
His defense is useless as well as is clearly supported by actual performance on the field of play and by stats.  No 'scramble defense" dream of yours will ever rectify or justify that deficiency - the worst ever seen iro any SA flyhalf.
Those are truths and not lies - what you produce is utter nonsense.  I would not call it lies - it is so nonsensical it cannot be classified as lies, so it had to eb idiocy.               
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Jul 2015, 19:55
#13
19 Jul 2015, 19:55#13
Oh for heaven sake, stick to the topic . We are discussing yesterday's match. If you think Malherbe wasn't cracked....de Allende didn't defend poorly at the death and Lood wasn't dummied for the try, present your argument....otherwise refrain from polluting the string.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Jul 2015, 20:24
#14
19 Jul 2015, 20:24#14
 How can one argue with an idiot - who misrepresents what happened on a field and then challenge people to prove him wrong.  This is the best joke I have heard for years.
Oh for heavens sake learn about rugby  - listen to experts - - and do not misinterpret things through prejudice - then in the long run a person may become interested in what you write on this site - at this stage it is just BS or crap.    I leave it to you to decide which of the two descriptions represents you. 
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
19 Jul 2015, 21:33
#15
19 Jul 2015, 21:33#15
 Michael, how old are you? You talk like a tween, not an adult. It's disgusting that someone so many years my senior can be so immature. The compulsive lying just adds one more layer of repulsion .
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
19 Jul 2015, 21:41
#16
19 Jul 2015, 21:41#16
This is an extraordinary claim! Defenders don't mark Morne, they instead fan out - note this lateral movement ignoring the inner channels - and not back, to cover lateral kicks... ROFLMAO!!!!! Has anyone ever stated more rubbish than this? I can scarcely believe what I'm reading. How does anyone take this man seriously? 
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news