We so often find that on this site at least there is a way in dealing with rugby issues in the simpleton manner. Lets look at a few examples of what I regard as the simpleton.s way of dealing with rugby issues.
The flyhalf debate
For years we have been bombarded by some members about how ireplaceable Morne Steyn is as our flyhalf. When asked why - the normal answer was his goalkicking abilities. There is no way that he was assessed as being a competent all-round flyhalf. Whenever his reading of games and decisionmaking was queried - like happened at the Ellis Park test last year in the case of the try at half-time - there is no answer given and we get flooded by other arguments.
Another problem with Morne recntly was his poor defense - but that was not recognized either by some members. They rather tried to find reasons why he missed tackles so ferequently and crucial ones at that.
Then there is the Francois Steyn issue. Here the argument was that he can kick at goal and he has the huge physique that theoretically make him a daunting figure on the field of play. Yet Francois has been found to have sub-par decisionmaking abiities and his passing game was iffy - if not downright poor and his kicking out of hand game often enough inaccurate. His defnse was ta best also iffy.
In both cases the arguments of some members were basically because they are goalkickers - while every other aspect of play was ignored.
The Victor Matfield Issue
Here we have a case where the members only concentrate on his line outs ability and point out that he is the top line out jumper in the world - without really proving that what they write about is true. When pointed out that his line-out work is nothing exceptional - back came the anwer to the effect that his mere presence disrupt the line out play of the opposition. Is that really so - what evidence is there to support the argument?
The second positive according to his supporters is that he is good in defense. His tackling stats shows that he makes enough tackles - but does no reflect the quality of the tackles made by him as well as the scenario about tackles he missed.
So here we have a case where the Matfield adherents again look at only two aspects - his line out work and tackling stats. For the rest they do not look into the role of him as a lock in Tight 5 play, the grunt - or lack of it - displayed by h im or his inability to carry balls in traffic.
Again a simplistic approach - without regard to wider consequnces.
The Willem Alberts Saga
Here we have the case of Albert's allege "Mighty Ball Carries" and "Bone-crushing tackles". Fac is that Albert's gfamous carries has ceased years ago and is noadays a pipe dream without substance - with average meter gains of circa 1 meter per carry. The quality ifhis tackles are not evaluated at all. They in fact range from good to poor - when an objective assessment of those are made. The low tackle count and crucial missed tackles are ignored - fact is the deficiency insofar as low work rate of the player is ignored as well.
When his inability in ball handling and ball protection and recovery in breakdown situation are raised - back came the unsubstantiated "Mighty Ball Carrier" and "Bonecrushies" statements.
Summary
The above are only a few examples of the simpleton approach to player perormance evaluation. There are similar examples that can be quoted.
Fact is that only a few members in fact look at all aspects of performance of a players. For the rest especially some memebers pick what they regard as positives and make unsubstantiated statements to support their arguments - while denigrating all players they regard as being a threat to their favourites.
