These ratings - why even bother

This from 365...

But when we say that DDA is hyped beyond reality, people tell us we're crazy...

12 Damian de Allende

Got the Boks over the advantage line and bullied the Japanese defenders. Worked hard defensively and never took a backwards step.

8.5/10

11 Kurt-Lee Arendse

Conceded the first penalty of his side, but worked hard on defence and kick chases and grabbed a brace for his efforts. Topped the linebreak stats with three and made 11 carries, but also conceded three turnovers. Won the official Player of the Match award.

7.5/10

One can but laugh at what constitutes rugby journalism these days.

LOL. Rugbypass ratings tend to be a little better depending on the journo, Francisco isn't their best but at least he gets it right that the MOTM gets a higher rating than the plebs.

In the land of the blind - in your case caused by prejudice - cockeye continues to be king. So tell me what do you rate the performances of De Allende was.

Both Rugby pass and Rugby 365 used journalists to do the ratings with Rugby Pass being done by a parttime journalist and Rugby 365 done by a South African journalist - - so you pick the one ahead of the other based on prejudiced BS

.

According to an announcement on a board at the end of the match Sacha was the official man the match - where did you get that story as to the MOM from brain delusional individual?

.

At some point hopefully Plumpster will realize he got his Allende assessment hopelessly wrong.

The more Plumpster gets out of this tiny bubble he is in the more he will realize the rugby world rates Allende.

But this pales into insignificance when one considers how the Plumpster got duped by mozzietard regarding Rassie and Du Toit.

Alas bad company corrupts sound thinking.

No one announced Sacha as official MOTM ou Maaik. Don't you watch the games? Arendse was awarded during the game, that's how all of us who watched know. By paying attention.

Supersport has a way where voewers phone in th eir choices as MOM and it is often inaccurate because idiots come up with weird suggestions and that des not make the MOM selection on the field accurate at all

By the way that is really material for team evaluation at all.

What is more important is that Eterhuizen proved that he is a loosie and not a center, In the 21 tests he played at flyhalf he scored 2 tries - in the four matches he played as a loosie he scored 2 tries,

Esterhuizen will not play at center against France and Ireland - Hooker may be tried in that position against Wales, Mc Closskey plays for Ulster and although he was better than Esterhuizen in the match beween the Sharks and

Ulster - he was below apr in th e match between the Lions and Ulster, We all know by now that Ireland does not have a class team this year normally most of the players of Ireland comes from Leinster - but they are struggling in the URC this year.

The real test will be the Springboks playing France this coming weekend.

Mc Closskey plays for Ulster and although he was better than Esterhuizen in the match beween the Sharks and Ulster

LOL, he played just 27 minutes against the Sharks making 5m.

Not sure what you're trying to prove here. McCloskey was shit against the Lions? Okay, so a shit center outperformed DDA playing against tier 1 test opposition this weekend while DDA was playing against a minnow. Is that the point you're trying to make? The more you argue for how shit McCloskey is, the more glaring the discrepancy between his performance against NZ and DDA against lowly Japan becomes.

McClosskey is a 33 year olfd sud - o/utplayed in the Lions team ny Mills amd van Wyk. So your new hero has feet of clay - but go on regardless, By the way he was much better than St Esterhuizen in which he played 27 minutes, ,

Hehe, you're still making my point. That a 33-year old part time international was more productive against the All Blacks than the so-called #1 12 in world rugby was against Japan. The more you talk down McClosky, the worse it gets.