The Stormers game.just the rub of the green.

one has to admire Mozart for going on about some players who caused the loss of the Stormers, but he is one-dimensional and does not understand the game of rugby.   So one has to look at the game as a whole.
There are various reasons for the loss - and Mozart only looked at an obvious few.   The wider implications are beyond him.   Those include the following:-
Poor ball handling - there was 18 cases where the Stormers lost ball possession by various players - all indicating poor ball handling skills on their part.   Mozart mentioned a few examples, but missed the rest.
Missed tackles  -  there were 22 missed tackles.   The Stormers made 133 tackles - but some of the 22 misses let to Cheetahs tries.
Ball protection and recovery - other than a minimal number of recoveries by Vermeulen the Stormers loosies in particular was deficient in that department of the game, while the Cheetahs thrived on that.
Aimless kicking straight into the hands of opposing players.   This is particularly bad when relieving kicks do not find touch or when instead of keeping the ball in hand kicks are launched - not only by the flyhalfs (both were poor in that regard), but when forwards start kicking balls away.
Serious deficient throwing in of balls at line-outs.  Mbonambi was atrocious - Ntubeni just slightly better.
To blame just a few named players are just not good enough - the team effort as a whole showed serious deficiencies.    
             

"There was 18 cases" .... I rest my cases

Poor handling at this level is 9/10 the result of hesitancy created by not having a clear plan to breakdown a defence; not the players being unable to handle the ball. The Stormers, with many of these players, have scored some of the best tries in the competitions history - all with deft handling. So clearly they can handle the ball. Our coaches rely on individuals to create something, but those individuals have to coordinate a strike as units to make attacking play work. Without know-how of how to break a defence down, and without a coherent system in place, players fumble because they struggle to combine in meaningful ways.

A kick that lands in opposition hands is not necessarily aimless. The goal isn't always to find touch, in fact, in some match-ups it's quite the opposite. It's aimless when teams do it as a last resort and without the other 14 men backing it up either with chasers or with a plan to contain.

The Cheetahs have long been the better of the SA sides at the breakdown, nothing new there. And when a team is handling the ball more they are going to have to dominate the collisions and breakdown more. If you don't win those battles you cannot play with the ball in hand, period. Run stats, meters gained, clean breaks are meaningless if you are losing the territory battle and the battle for possession, as we have seen many times. A notable one being the All Blacks 3rd test of 2009!

Welcome back Lestat, some good insights....it's good to get away from the Schalk, Alberts, Matfield bashing of our other respondent on this thread.  

 Letsal
Thanks for your contribution.   However, there are serious issues about kicking that other teams avoid like a plague and si common in SA.
There are basically three categories of kicks that can be clearly identified:-
1.    A relieving kick when a team has problems in defending within their own 22.   If there is failure to find touch with such a kick it is aimless and normally seriously counter-productive, since it is the foundation from which opposing teams  launch further attacks.
2.    Strategic kicks, where the kicks form part of a strategy to put opposing teams at a disadvantage.  These must be carefully executed and must not be too far ahead to be followed up effectively.  The recipient must find catching or fielding of the ball difficult and must be caught out of position by the kicks.
3.  Aimless kicks are the norm when it comes to SA kicking.  They are normally aimed down the middle of the field and too far ahead for effective follow-up leaving the catcher under no pressure and huge space to counter the kick - wither by a better-directed kick or a counter-attack.  Basically such kicks - especially those down the center of the field aimed directly to where a catcher is waiting - purely represents handover of ball possession to the opposition and leave the way wide open for opposing teams to exploit to disadvantage of the kicker's team.
Kicking must be part of a strategy to be used to the advantage of the kickers team - if not in general kicks can be regarded as aimless.   The problem is that most of the kickers are clueless about reading of the game and they launch counter-productive kicks. 
I am afraid the passing and catching abilities of many of our players are sub-par - it has nothing to do with breakdown of the defenses of the opposition - rather with poor ball skills.    


              

 Just watched the game & it struck me that the Cheetahs simply had far more energy, they had a clear game plan that suited their strengths and were able to execute it. This included stripping of the ball while tackling and ensuring the pace was as fast as possible. Yes, the stormers were a bit unlucky but normally they would have beaten the Cheetahs in spite of bad luck. Kolby and Kolisi being stripped and tackled so easily was strange.
Maybe the stormers were off their game because of the return from tour but they didn't look like the team we had watched in the last few weeks. They could have also just taken the Cheetahs too lightly.
PS Petersen (14) had a very good day. By the 72nd minute he already had accumulated 8 carries, 42 meters made; 3 defenders beaten & 2 gain-line successes.
Vermeulen also had a good day & benefited from the time off. By the 72 minute he had: 13 carries; 77 meters made; 1 defender beaten & 9 tackles made. He may not have won player of the year but not bad anyway

Dead right JW a lot of the contests are settled by one team really being up for the game. Yesterday that was the Chetahs.

The Cheetas got off to a good start, and the Stormers team have proven that they are not a team that come from behind because their attack is too poor. 
The Stormers game plan is to get the lead early and keep it, not co meba ck