The side that should play Scotland

 Dave
Remember you are dealing here with a so-called expert who thinks that -
*   Folau is not a good enough fuull back;*   that Kirchner is a top class full back*   that Morne is a top class flyhalf in world rugby*   that Steyn is the ebst inside center in SA at present;*   that Fe Jongh is the ebst 13 in SA at present*   that Matfield is the best lock at present.
I can go on with that list and you would be surprised which players he rates and which he does not rate.  With rare differences Mozart and him are the same in outlook on players.     

I have got to have my say here, De Allende got over the advantage line just about every time he got the ball. Even though he almost always had a number of tacklers hanging onto him. Fox, you can have your say regarding his defense, because arguably, he has a slight issue in that department. Not that I saw any problem with his defense against the Samoans. But for you to even insinuate that there is something wrong with his attacking capabilities just makes you look stupid. Every commentator, sports writer, discussion panel and poster on this site, acknowledges his effectiveness in this area. Even those on this site that are not advocates for De Allende like Moz have acknowledged his attacking effectiveness. Most people in the know are of the opinion that De Villiers unfortunate injury has opened the door for us to play our best center pairing, without the conflict of leaving out our captain.

 Pakiew
The stats of ESPN arte checked and double checked by a reputable body - - so I do not accept that you do it better than they do it on a professional basis.  
Have it your way - but it is evident that you are talking mostly a load of unadulterated sh!t in this case.  Sorry to be so blunt about it.  

Blue, you are wasting your time with DumbFox  

I did not criticize his ability to run in space. So you may want to address your reading comprehension skills which are on par with a potato. What I have said is that he did NOT run OVER people. 

DF
Blind as to what happened in fact - so whats the use to read your BS.

The difference being Mike, anyone can verify my so-called "unadulterated sh!t" by reviewing my time stamped references. 
You, however, have provided diddly squat that can be verified. 
1. You haven't provided one instance of proof that "De Allende tried to make tackles which he should have left to others". I have disproven it comprehensively.
2. You haven't provided one instance of proof that your original assertion (made weeks ago when we first went through this) that De Allende was missing tackles because he was getting up from tackles and making secondary ones is true. I have proven comprehensively that not ONE of his missed tackles fit that criteria.
3. You asserted that the Aussies having a player running at De Allende every two minutes is a mathematical impossibility. I've proven that between minutes 66:20 and 69:51, the Aussies sent 3 players directly into his channel, as well as two close enough for him to have to assist with the tackles. That is 5 tackle situations in 3 and a half minutes (one every 42 seconds), or three direct tackles (one per minute). Minutes 17:00 - 20:00 also features one tackle per minute, and minutes 50:53 - 56:52 a tackle every 2 minutes, proving that one tackle attempt every 2 minutes is easily mathematically possible not just once, but three times. Just regular play, no need even for absurdities like "all players running at him every time the Aussies had the ball in hand."
4. I've even proven ESPN stats can be flawed by proving that the missed tackle count was 7, referencing each one.
I've blown every single thing you've claimed out of the water, backed up with referenced proof. You've come back with refutations backed up by nothing but half-baked opinions and a stat sheet. 
Done with this, done with you.

I think you mean Bluebok, Fox. I haven't been talking to you on this thread.  

 Pakie, I'm not sure, but from the field position,  I think it's the Kuridrani tackle of 81:33.DdA and Louw were defending the blind side of the ruck, with Louw on the inside. De Allende went up in defence, covering K in the event of him going wide, as well as his outside, in the event of a pass. IMO Louw should have advanced at the same time, to defend the inside. He hung back. This gave K the opportunity to break to the inside. There was no way that Louw was ever going to stop him that close to the line, DdA was defending at the wrong angle for the inside break, but had to go for the tackle anyway. He came from the side and could not stop K in time. I blame Louw for that one. Pollard had to make similar tackles in the match. If your 10 and 12 are forced to make alot of tackles, it's normally an indication that the loosies are "lazy"

My apologies! In my cold blooded haste I found an egg to face. 

 Paki, I don't think the 80:33 tackle can be counted as a miss, although it resulted in a try. Ineffective due to wrong positioning.

 PS, Pakie. I THINK, Mike has taken upon himself to defend certain players and attack some others. In his enthusiasm to do so, he blundered quite a bit here and there....as we do all from time to time. I have seen worse distortions of the truth on here. Am I defending Mike? To a certain extent maybe, but I've always had a soft spot for the underdog, if you can pardon the pun!

Mike can defend them all he wants Draad, as long as he backs it with facts, not made-up nonsense. He could have stopped at something like it was De Allende's first test and he was still finding his feet or whatever and that would have been fine. But to make stuff up about the nature of the tackles, and then to persist in defending that in the face of evidence to the contrary? I don't have time for that kind of intellectual dishonesty.
As for the final De Allende miss, fair comment. Technically though Kuridrani clearly beat the tackle, and it was yet again a weak effort from De Allende on the inside step. Louw looks like he was caught ball watching a bit and so had less reaction time than De Allende. But I'm happy to call that one 50/50, no skin off my back and not one I hold particularly strongly against Damien. Kuridrani will not easily be stopped that close.

 Pakie does not even know what a missed tackle attempt means.  It means when an actual attempt is made to make a tackle whether it is made or missed.   Take one case where Folau was carrying the ball - while De Allende was guarding against a pass to Giteau leaving the field open for Folau.   If De Allende went to tackle Folau - and he passed the ball to Giteau there would have been nobody to defend against Giteau.   
So he did not go for Folau - if he went to tackle Folau all Folau had to do was to pass the ball to Giteau and the result would have been the same.   Pakie recorded it as a missed tackle when in fact there was no attempt made by De Allende to make a tackle.
The two wise guys obviously blamed De Allende for the problem - he should have tackled both both players all in one and not a two on one overlap that existed.   You cannot discuss rugby issues with our resident wise guys.
So the stats used worldwide in rugby and is carefully monitored and checked by experts is worthless - the Pakie interpretation is totally authentic.  He claimed that de Allende made 14 tackles and missed 7 - the match day summary gave the stats as 15 tackles made.   Pakie never saw the other three - but her claims he is the great authority in the issue.
He thinks that one player tackling or attempting to tackle 10 different players in a game is 100% normal - since all those 10 players ran their lines straight at De Allende irrespective of what position they are playing in - and then he claims that criticism of his comments are based on unfounded info.  What a superiority complex in this case - something like "I am so good - I cannot talk too highly of myself".
Sorry Pakie but the ESPN stats are used worldwide by experts and I assume that you think you have more expertise than anybody else compiling and evaluating those stats.     

Of course the 80.33 tackle was a miss. He tackled from the side but made full contact and was brushed off. Are side tackles no longer tackles?
As for this tackles beaten stuff. Nobody doubts Allende is hardto put down....so he tractors forward with players clinging to him. But what has he actually produced with all this tractoring....not one try or one assist. In fact I can't remember him being significantly involved in points, except for the opposition.

At the beginning of the season he did the same tractoring runs, but he also made a few cuts into space and he offloaded superbly. He seems to have become enamouredwith contact.

Huge hype. But in truth so far his contributions are more on the stats sheet than influencing the game.
As postscript Pakie has settledthetackling argument with actual picture. But now even direct visual evidence can be denied. Dishonesty it seems has no limits.  

 tractor-brain - have you run out of gas again?   Another fool who use the ESPN stats when I suits him -  but  when it does not suit him - supports Pakie in his claim that the stats are worthless and that Pakie is superior to all other statisticians.   
The village idiots are thinking they are the supreme authority in rugby matters - everybody else is wrong - they are correct.  
I state clearly my reasons to disagree - and I gave sound reasons for it - I did not use your way of lying and misinterpretations. That is reserved foir you and your suidekick Desert Fox.   

 Ok fair Moz. Care to do the same exercise for Pollard?

Oh well, since I have nothing better to do and I am being attacked...
1. "Pakie in his claim that the stats are worthless"Lie - I never claimed the stats are worthless, just that they are not flawless.
2. "Pakie is superior to all other statisticians"Another lie - I never claimed to be superior, freely admitting that my count may be off by a few tackles. I stick to my missed tackle count because I can verify every one. That doesn't make me superior. That makes me true to what actually happened.

3. "I state clearly my reasons to disagree - and I gave sound reasons for it" But you don't provide one piece of verifiable evidence. Just opinion.
4. "Take one case where Folau was carrying the ball - while De Allende was guarding against a pass to Giteau leaving the field open for Folau. "Provide the timestamp so we can evaluate it. Not that it is of any consequence whatsoever. See point 6 below.
5. "He thinks that one player tackling or attempting to tackle 10 different players in a game is 100% normal - since all those 10 players ran their lines straight at De Allende irrespective of what position they are playing in"Lie - I never said I think it is normal, and my opinion on whether it is normal or not doesn't matter. What matters is that it happened, and it can be verified. 
6. And after all this, you're still missing the point. What this is all about is you claiming that Damien's missed tackles were caused by:a) him attempting tackles no one else would and
b) him having to get up from other tackles to make secondary tackles
I have refuted both those claims. They do not apply to any of the tackles he missed. Not one. 
That is the heart of the matter. You've been caught making up nonsense. You've been free all this time to provide even just one timestamp that backs up those claims. Yet nothing. Instead you're blustering on about the accuracy of stats. Nice attempt at diversion, but you're still guilty as charged.

 Amen.

 Believe me...this game is a different animal to any traditional game...a game we have to win...with Scotland an opportunity that will not be taken lightly.

Picking a side is very difficult...the scrums are to be solid...the fundamentals correct and defence very sound or else

Scotland is a funny side that seem to do better against strong sides like Sa and Australia and yet are mediocre against their traditional enemies in 6N.

World cups are different...they have never disgraced here...believe me we'll have to get this one right...they know we are hurting and will come at them ...but they can be very controlled in tight games...with the Boks a do or die but if we manage it will lift our side to higher levels.

According to you the stats are flawed - so does that not make them worthless.  ESPN uses info you have not have - even different camera angles you do not have - yet there stats are flawed - yours correct.  You claim an extra missed tackle and reduce the actual tackles made by 3.   The actual difference is about 25% different from the match report on the game - as well as what was stated in other reports as well.  You claim that 10 different players irrespective of in which position they play all ran all at the line where only  De Allende can or is defending.   
If you believe all that as gospel because you says so - you are welcome to it,  But don't expect me to say "I bow to your impossible superior knowledge my lord".
So I am being caught making up nonsense - what a joke.       

 Mike, give it up. You are aggravating someone for no reason. It's fine if you differ, but there is no reason to get aggressive.

Chabal, how dare you come in here and stick to the original topic of the thread 

 Ok, Mike. Aggressive was the wrong term. Pakie did his homework and backed up his argument with pics. I gave another perspective of one incident....from my perspective. If you can add more, you can back it up with a pic. Pakie sort of eccepted my perspective 50/50, where I was on 60/40. If i felt stronger about the specifics, I would have added visual aids to my argument.

 Scotland will take the best on in a world cup and get through but with no disrespect won't crack a side like NZ... I think they could crack us at this stage because we are vulnerable...a defeat to Japan is a huge psycho to overcome...might be our biggest saving grace...a huge kick in the backside...the Samoans certainly felt it...but I'm not totally convinced....

Some good points Chabal. Scotland beat us last about 13 years ago because they destroyed Deon Carstens in the scrums. We need a better scrumming performance on Saturday.  

I think Pdivvy also lost to Scotland. I remember him saying that Scotland was the banana peel oft the tour and put his foot in his mouth- not sure if it was the same tour. 

Yeah 2010 Murrayfield, Scotland won 21-17.  

 Meyer has lost against Wales, only the second time in history, first draw and loss to Argie and a loss to Jap. Yes, the gap is getting smaller, but I can't see any other top 5 teams losing against the likes of Japan in the near future. Japan?

 We lost to Jap for the same reason we lost to Argie at home. Some sort of complacent boredom that takes hold of the team. A couple of bad luck bounces against them, and it all falls flat. They rattle, they panic and yhe leadership in the team tried to fall back to what made things work for them way back in 2009, without realising that the game, the opposition  and their own team has changed since then and most of the time that plan is simply too outdated to work. Our experience has become a burden. It is time for a change in leadership on the field and new blood in the starting 15.

These stats are just raw data that is questionable without context; They do not tell you a thing. One tackle success on a stat sheet can mean he simply had a hand on a player (that happens often). It doesn't tell who was the primary defender, what the attacking movement was and the defensive duties in response. It doesn't tell you whether this tackle was head on, lateral or from behind. It doesn't tell you how effective that tackle was, whether it was high, medium or low. It doesn't tell you whether the attacker gained ground, offloaded, passed before contact and got support into space; whether he wanted to stand on his feet, beat a shoulder, go to ground for a quick recycle. There is more but I think that will suffice. Folks who cannot read the game look at numbers and grow to trust them in judging the effectiveness of players. It is futile. I have yet to see a single fan who relies on numbers who can interpret any aspect of the game. 

Carbuncle wants the " amazing Lambie" to run things and Stephanie to be our lock. Hopefully he is taking the piss, if not this is an odds on favorite for the famous Helen Keller Award.