The winning WC semi try.....Allende's role

Lurker. I was a big fan of DdA in 2014/2015 (I think). Back then he had a bit of an offloading game...a good pass and he could break tackles. That was playing for the Stormers. He's got troubles on defense playing for the Boks though. 

He lost his offload and makes blunders on defense and offense. I don't think there is anything wrong with his tackling technique, he simply make the wrong choices at times and his positional play is just way wrong. Not the ideal midfielder, but who do we play at 12 and 13? Both positions are problematic for the Boks ATM. I don't see any other players that are clearly better. I was hoping that the Du Plessis cousins might make a case, but they have been injured since last year.

We might try Pollard at 12, but will that be an improvement? We are totally screwed in the midfield.

He was bad in that Super XV, got better in the Rugby Championship and better again in the World Cup. He regressed completely after Meyer got booted out. Meyer got better production out of him, but he was still not test quality. He could offload a bit (erratically and nothing constructive to it), but was way overhyped. Throwing a ball out doesn't make you an attacking force. The Stormers attack was awful in 2015. He didn't help them and he was still a defensive nightmare. Poor Juan had to sit on an island and defend when Allende should have formed a 3 man front with 10 12 13. He doesn't just play badly he, he makes everyone else's job harder. Clever Mike whines that Schalk was "in the fly half position" too much (first receiver is first receiver, not the fly half position) but what options does Allende give you ball in hand? He is a cul-de-sac, like Krieg and most of our other supposed "running" types. There was a Myth about him making loads of linebreaks, too bad that those that did happen where out wide along or near the touchline in space. He can be good in space against a passive defence buy so can anyone. Our below average players always do just enough to impress the lay person against poor and passive defences and then get blown apart against teams tat pressure you. This is not a world class player. Jean and Fourie were doing more against more stacked defences pre-ELVs when defences were up in your face and you had to be more accurate and make even quicker reads. Allende was heralded as the best 12 in Bok history by many before he even did anything against Australia and New Zealand. If he can turn it all around, then good on him. We could sure as heck use that, I don't want to see players fail, especially ours, but I'm not seeing anything to be positive about. He is worse now than he was in 2015's Super XV.

Your idea of Pollard at 12 is interesting Draad. I have no doubt he'd be the best 12 in ZA easily, but he is also our best 10 by far. Who can we have at 10? Jantjies? I'd have almost anyone at 12 ahead of Allende. At least a player that looks like they have played the position before. 

I would agree with Draad that Duh Allendes technique is not that bad and we've seen him put big guys on their backsides but his positional play is the worst I've seen in a bok jersey. 

Why can't he seem to keep up with the defensive line when we blitz or drift when 10 and 13 do. When we employ an umbrella defence he doesn't advance at all creating the dog leg inside 13.

How He and Kriel have been kept on as our midfield partnership is mindblowing especially when one thinks of Kriels running lines.

How many times can anyone remember Duh offloading in the tackle or in a half break to Kriel on an angle or even support line??

A lack of honesty means there's no accountability. Certain players are never held to a standard and never grow. The fans think they are doing their idols a favour but they are doing the exact opposite. If you get called out for what you did you are much less likely to repeat it. At least you might work on that area. But why aren't our coaches seeing these problems too? Why isn't anyone sitting down with Allende and helping him see the game the right way? There's no guarantee that it will make him world class but it can't make him any worse either. Then if you are willing to do that like, if he doesn't succeed you can at least say you tried and Allende has himself to blame for failing. Our best Boks mostly take pride in their work and block out the praise of others and are self-critical enough to evaluate themselves honestly. They end up being the guys who improve. Some of them have become legends of the game. 

BS

Xavi 

I will explain the situation carefully to get a clear idea about what happened here in the case of De Allende.   In the first instance I also  criticized De Allende severely in the past and suggested that he not be in the Springbok team earlier this year.   Secondly there is the issue of who started the so-called story being analyzed above by Mozart, Pakie and Lurker.

.THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE COMMENTATOR, JOURNALIST OR RUGBY ANALYST WHO RAISED THE ISSUE THAT MOZART RAISED AS FAR BACK AS 2015.   THE ORIGINAL STORY WAS THAT DE ALLENDE MISSED THE TACKLE ON NONU.   WHEN CHALLENGED ON THE ISSUE MOZART PUT A VIODEO CLIP ON SITE PROVING THAT HIS PREVIOUS ALLEGATION OF A MISSED TACKLE WAS A LIE.

Be it as it may we now have two analysts on line - Pakie and Lurker who both dislike De Allende almost as much as Mozart does,   That is where we part ways - objective analysis requires a neutral approach - prejudice and dislike leads to false analysis.   Pakie for example in another case was caught out lying about  the same player and his analysis in this case is also BS - not the paper it is written on.

IF ANYONE BAR MOZART STARTED THE ISSUE - I WOULD HAVE SAT UP AND TAKE NOTICE - BUT NOBODY ELSE IN THE RUGBY WORLD CAME UP WITH THAT STORY.

We all know Mozart by now - he starts virtual weekly threads attacking his standard pet hate players and it goes back for years.    

I must state I have my own problems with De Allende - but I never invented and used false information to discredit a player and normally listen to what knowledgeable experts say.  For instance Lurker said my impression on Francois Steyn  is based on personal dislike - it is not.   Steyn came back from France in a terribly poor physical condition. in 2012 - he was grossly over-weight and played in 7 tests and was poor in all seven.   I can remember  two instances where  he tried to make relieving kicks from within the Springbok 22 and the ball rolled along the ground putting virtually the whole team off-side.  However - lets leave it there because of what happened  at the start of the Super Rugby series in 2013.   Plumtree as Sharks coach after four disgusting performances by Steyn gave up on him.   He revealed that Steyn was grossly over-weight and needed to reduce his weight from 118 kgs to circa 106 to 108 kgs - which he never did while on contract with the Sharks,   Plumtree added that Steyn is not a center at all and I took heed of that comment.   Mozart on the other hand since then despised Plumtree as  a coach.

Now back to your comments above.   First of all there are a number of statistical information aspects which are 100%  accurate and used by coaches all over the world.   Among those are -

*   the number of tackles made by a player and the number missed - a player either successfully completed a tackle or missed it and that count is accurate;

*   the number of balls passed by a player and the number of off-loads;

*   tries scored and try - assists. etc

                  . 

Frans had a good 2012 until injured. I'd not actually recall saying anything about your opinion. He wasn't the key problem in 2013 either. Plum had a lot of problems managing the squad. I think he tried 5 players at 12 and returned to Frans in the end. Why are we actually discussing Frans anyway?

Statistics are worthless Clever Mike. So many instances of players merely resting a hand on an opponent are counted as a successful tackle. If you want to evaluate the game you must abandon statistics COMPLETELY! There are so many questions to be answered that statistics can't and won't tell you. Rugby is too nuanced to be quantified by a 1 or a 0. It sounds like this is where you go wrong. Damian's tackles are ineffective. They have little force and don't often disrupt anything. When a team target you there is an issue. He doesn't understand some of the most basic things. He'll ball watch and walk completely out of alignment. He has no sense for the flow of the game. He'll run into the teeth of the defence and screw up, or rather do lyrics kick it out on the full when  he has numbers out wide. I'm actually warming up to the idea of Jantjies-Pollard. It's far better than Pollard-Allende. I think Serfontein at 13 could be a great solution with what we have, at 13. He is like a poor man's Jean because he is actually tactically sound. Has a good feel for the game. Jantjies-Pollard-Serfontein. Sound defensively and more force on attack. Potential to make a cohesive unit. As long as we get stability at 9 then we'll be okay. Bok rugby has always been about scrum half. 

What?   I am not talking about stats I am talking about performance.   Those two kicks of Steyn  was not the worse he did.   However, I gave you the full background on what happened in this case. Lurker do you really believe the BS about tackles as reflected in stats.  If you do = write a letter to all   coaches worldwide to advise them not to to use stats in   player evaluation.      

The rest of what you wrote is garbled nonsense not even remotely acceptable.   If you say Willemse and Pollard - maybe it could work out.  Jantjies is a defensive sieve and Pollard also have problems in defense.   He was tried at 12 by the Bulls in a recent match and he was sub-standard.  The experiment was NOT REPEATED,   

I will probably be flayed alive for this but I don't think Willemse will be a Bok great. Watching his highlights and He's quick and elusive but once you take away his space and the inside spin what are we left with? 

Some of you guys who watch him more regularly will have to fill me in cos I can't see him commanding an attack or marshalling play so to speak at top levels.

"A lack of honesty means there's no accountability. Certain players are never held to a standard and never grow. The fans think they are doing their idols a favour but they are doing the exact opposite. If you get called out for what you did you are much less likely to repeat it. At least you might work on that area. But why aren't our coaches seeing these problems too? Why isn't anyone sitting down with Allende and helping him see the game the right way? There's no guarantee that it will make him world class but it can't make him any worse either. Then if you are willing to do that like, if he doesn't succeed you can at least say you tried and Allende has himself to blame for failing. Our best Boks mostly take pride in their work and block out the praise of others and are self-critical enough to evaluate themselves honestly. They end up being the guys who improve. Some of them have become legends of the game."

Fully agree on this.

and this too basically but there is sometimes a contradiction in the context interpretation and/or lack of understanding

This is spot on: "Statistics are worthless Clever Mike. So many instances of players merely resting a hand on an opponent are counted as a successful tackle. If you want to evaluate the game you must abandon statistics COMPLETELY! There are so many questions to be answered that statistics can't and won't tell you. Rugby is too nuanced to be quantified by a 1 or a 0. It sounds like this is where you go wrong"

I would happily do that. Video analysis is key and the best coaches in all sports have an aptitude for analytics. If you honestly think team meetings centre on handing sheets of numbers out to everyone then you are d ead wrong. The film room. Guiding everyone on what went right and what went wrong. What's going to help a player on game day? Thinking of a few numbers or analysing the opponent on film? Remembering what he rehearsed in practice. What you think happens doesn't go on anywhere. At best you can look at numbers for trends but it'll always lead back to video analysis. Each and every time. Numbers tell you NOTHING. I peppered you with questions to see what you actually understood and you could answer nothing. Because you knew nothing. That's why Pakie and Mozart made a fool of you because while you were looking at pointless numbers that are gathered with less than adequate accuracy they were looking at film and they were learning. You learned nothing from the game. Just caught in an endless cycle of nonsense. You have really got yourself in a bind. Like a puppy caught in a rip current. 

BS - I never said stats is the only issue used in player evaluation.  No coach will ignore it is an one of  the elements of player evaluation.  So allow me to expand to that issue.   I wrote in the past that stats in one match is meaningless - it gains credence when a player display the same tendency in a series of games.   Take for instance the following example - a player makes continuously missed tackles in a number of games.   The coach will take note of it and try and correct the deficiency.   If he is unsuccessful the player will get rougher treatment.

I can actually quote a specific example.   Take Frans Steyn - in the 2014 Super Rugby series he caused more possession losses than any other backline player has done in any such series.   This happened because of two problems - poorly directed kicks and ball hogging causing resultant turnovers or penalties.   If you look at his stats playing for Montpellier the same tendency is prevalent in his performances at the club as well. 

I can give  you a number of examples where coaches take into account tendencies of players confirmed by stats in player evaluation and dropped them from the team:-

*   In 2013 Frans Steyn played in four matches where he had a combination of three poor tendencies - poor kicking, poor defense and ball hogging making Plumtree to state publicly that he is no center at all.

*   Motrne Steyn had always had a serious defense deficiency and also developed a tendency to ail to find touch with penalty kicks.   The two negative tendencies came together in the Perth test in 2014 - and Meyer never selected hi again to start in tests.

*   Pollard had a problem insofar s tackling is concerned and after a similar failure against Ireland in 2014 - Meyer replaced him with Lambie as starting flyhalf.   He only started as flyhalf when Lambie was injured and was even not Meyer's first choice flyhalf in the WC until the Japan disaster of 2015.

I f you want to insult me making the BS statement saying I only think that stats is the only norm I use in player evaluation you are a complete and utter idiot yourself   But we  already know you think you are a superior rugby evaluator to even coaches,

Problem is you have some good ideas on the issue of player evaluation but it is completely destroyed in implementation by prejudice against some  players and favouring of other players who failed even in the most basic execution of what is expected from them,.                  

I'm not all that interested in what Plumtree has to say. Another Kiwi that relies on his Kiwi roots to keep a job. And here's where you nail him yourself. Let's assume what you are saying is true, that Frans was no centre at all, that Plum said these things. Why did he cycle through several players at 12 and end up with Frans? Why did Frans still outplay them? It makes him look like a pretty stupid fool. Frans is the best defensive 12 I have ever seen. His the most powerful 12 I have ever seen. You can send that man into the very Jaws of the defence and he'll cause havoc. He isn't perfect, but he isn't selfish, he isn't technically flawed in any area of his game. I never saw him in France but I know the fans loved him, Carter spoke very highly of him and other great minds on the game had great respect for him. We can look at how he helped his French teams be successful and see that it was very unlikely to have been unsuccessful. 

You say things that are never true, or almost never true. Frans and Morne having a tendency to fail to find touch. That's just plain ignorant. But I have already exposed your conveniently warped criteria of what a good kick is. Morne had problems scoring from place kicks in 2012. He was dropped. His kicking out of hand has always been very good. That doesn't mean he never made an iffy kick or a mistake. By your criteria Larkham, Carter and Wilkinson are among the most worthless 10s is history. There have been tests where Carter has missed as many as 5 shots at goal. Where he has missed touch, and even thrown intercept passes (one ending their Tri Nations hopes). You see, a little bias can make anyone look very substandard. Are you going to tell me Carter and the other two are worthless? Morne has been a dependable defender too. You take about a tendency to be poor on defence but there is no tangible evidence to back that up. The biggest gripe I have with him is that he tends towards passivity a bit. He isn't the 'grab the test by the throat' kind of player like Butch was or Larkham, though he has made many test defining contributions. He also wasn't very fast. I never really understood why Meyer kept going back and forth between Morne and Lambie because although Morne was the better player, Lambie was a like for like swap. They have the same style and presence though Lambie is way more passive. (Did you notice Lambie miss touch in a crucial moment against England and many other times. He even botched restarts and kickoff for the Barbarians on almost every occasion. Is he worthless? Or do these criterias only apply to players you don't like?) 

Pollard has never had a defensive problem Clever Mike. He is the best defensive 10 since Butch. Easily. He is a very complete 10. He is strong, quick enough, mobile, has a terrific pass and great vision. If you are going to start trying to drag him down then I have to question if there is any value in me talking to you. I don't mean that to be rude but it seriously begs the question, are you enough to edify my need to discuss the game. It was true that Meyer dropped him but it was a mistake. None of the other pretenders came close to matching Pollard. We are very lucky to have someone this good.

Clever Mike. You have accused me of a lot of things, thrown insults at me, lied repeatedly about me. None of them have ever been true. I don't hate any players. I am not guilty of any prejudice. I have backed up my words and given everyone a platform to give their own opinions in response. You choose to act in a childish way towards others. You are so hyper emotional and sensitive that everything is perceived as an attack or some evil plot to get rid of you. I've tried to politely converse with you, I have tried to maintain some semblance of a conversation. I even attempted to direct the conversation towards the future of Bok rugby and the current team and get away from harping on the past but all of it has been a failure. I don't see what more there is to say after that. 

I wrote in the past that stats in one match is meaningless - it gains credence when a player display the same tendency in a series of games.

Okay. Then how do you arrive at this:

Motrne Steyn had always had a serious defense deficiency

Here is the research I did in 2016. Not only a series of games, but his test career from 2009 - 2016, as well as 4 years of Super Rugby. There is no tendency indicating that Morne has a "serious defense deficiency."

Morne's test tackle success at flyhalf (2009 - 2016) is 88% (I disregarded games against minnows like Namibia, Samoa, Fiji etc). He was an extremely secure tackler especially in the 2009 - 2013 period. Hardly schoolboy stuff. Matter of fact, he managed a 100% tackle record in 25 tests, while dipping below 70% in only 5 tests (3 of those his last three).

As well as this:

Pakie, I was always a Morne fan. I like steady and solid ...that was Morne.

And Card, Pollard is a great player, but he is not the greatest defender. He slips the odd tackle...as does Willie.

Yes Draad, there is no justification for this intense vilification of Morne - still holding multiple records as a Bok, including 31 solo points against the All Blacks in one game.

No Mozart 

M ark the following remark I made in this thread:-

"IF ANYONE BAR MOZART STARTED THE ISSUE - I WOULD HAVE SAT UP AND TAKE NOTICE - BUT NOBODY ELSE IN THE RUGBY WORLD CAME UP WITH THAT STORY."

I even put it in capital letters.  The same issue came up in another similar thread and I kept on asking repeatedly why nobody else ever came up with the claims you did.   That was when you responded about - how lucky we are in having you, AO and Pakie on site - seeing issues which no other rugby analyst ever saw.   

Nice try - you brought up this thread - but find the one where you did after repeated requests and challenges dealt with the issue of the Barrett try and stated what I claimed you did write.      

AO

I do not want to reopen any other discussion than the one on De Allende.   If you ant the issue of  Fat Fransie and Morne youa re welcome to open a thread dealing with those two.   By 2013 the two were dead losses anyway, despite your misrepresentations.  Frans even the same in 2012.  

No Mozarrt

This issue washed over into another thread, where you made a similar remark about rugby analysts as I repeatedly referred to.

So the rest of the SA rugby analysts do not do the work and your besotted mind do.  Now it I suddenly back to gridiron and the shills who operate in SA rugby case.   But these type of thing - especially in a world cup series is not subject to SA analysts only.

Sorry Mozart - you can easily find the other thread if you want to - and now come up with a story how you mentioned I should listen to AO and Pakie.   The problem is that all three of you are totally prejudiced in the case of some players and that the three of you cannot ever make an objective assessment ever.  

No way can that be regarded as worth anything.       

No Mozart it is not only rugby articles in the media - there are often expert discussions on other websites as well and none has come up with your statement. 

In any event you blame mental laziness for not discussing the issue by others - I think in your case it is prejudice that got out of hand.  I do not think we would ever agree on this issue and further discussion would be fruitless.