This must be terrible news for Mozart

The following from News 24:-

Among the legion of South Africans plying their trade in the French Top 14, Johan Goosen has come to the fore with perfect timing to give a welcome reminder to Springbok selectors.

Goosen, capped six times by South Africa and still only 23 years old, has thrived this season for Racing 92, his capacity to play across the backline helping in no small part to push the Parisian club towards Saturday's European Champions Cup final against Saracens.

When the South African arrived at Racing for the 2014-15 season, he played second fiddle to now-departed Ireland No 10 Jonathan Sexton and incumbent full-back Brice Dulin.

With New Zealand's World Player of the Year Dan Carter and France international playmaker Remi Tales also on their books, and with injuries to the preferred midfield line-ups, Goosen has been pressed into service in the outside centre position.

And the former Cheetah, who recently extended his Racing contract to 2020, has thrived.

I think I have changed but the main thing is that last season I didn't play a lot, but this season I've played a lot more," Goosen said.

"The team is doing really well at the moment, and if the team is doing really well, everyone's playing well and it's easy."

Goosen, who made his Springbok debut in 2012 at the age of 20, added: "I'll play in any position as long as it benefits the team.

"I don't think I've changed my mind really. I'm playing more so it's good for me and I can build on that every week. Last season I played one week on, one or two weeks off and it was difficult to build momentum.

"I would love to play 10, but at the moment I really love playing centre. This is my first time to play 13, I played 12 once when I was young."

The Top 14 is not a league for shrinking violets, and Goosen, who outplayed Manu Tuilagi in the semi-final win over Leicester, acknowledged that defence was tough, even with his 1.85m, 89kg build.

"Defence is difficult, I'm still learning, but playing alongside Alex (Dumoulin), Joe (Rokocoko), Juan (Imhoff) and Dan, they make it easy for me, they're always helping me," the Burgersdorp-born back said.

"I'm not the biggest guy, but 12 or 13, no problem. You're going to play against big guys, but as long as you focus on your job, you'll do ok."

Although Goosen struggles with the French language, he said he was beginning to understand a lot more.

"I've tried to learn the language, but it's still difficult for me. I can understand the coaches, it makes it easier to communicate," said the South African, whose wife recently gave birth to a baby in Paris.

Racing are enjoying a spectacular season, having trumped three-time winners Toulon in the European Cup quarter-finals and also sitting fourth in the Top 14 virtually assured a place in the end-of-season play-offs.

"They guys believe in the coaches and the way they want to play, and Dan plays a huge role in that," Goosen said of All Black legend Carter, who has been in his usual imperious form steering the capital club around the paddock.

"We just gel as a team and we're really good friends, like a bunch of brothers playing for each other.

"There's a great vibe and everyone respects everyone. There's a lot of good players here and you have to perform to keep your spot in the team and that's why when we train it's at 100 percent."

Goosen admitted he was wary of Saracens, who boast a host of internationals and are an easy match for any team in Europe.

"They've got a really good forward pack and really good backline as well. Owen Farrell is a very good player, they've got two very good centres and their wings and fullback are world-class," he said.

"It's a final game where the best team wins, but I'm looking forward to it. There are a few South Africans in there so we'll have a good beer afterwards!"

So why is this terrible news for the rugby illiterate  Mozart.  There is not a thread on this site where he did not attack Goosen as a player.   The simpleton knows nothing about rugby.  He hates Goosen because he replaced the useless Morne Steyn as Springbok flyhalf in 2012.   Since then he has been attacking Goosen.

However - Mozqart I not the only moron in this case.  His idiotic side-kick Ceradunce came with a story about a year ago that Goosen had problems with his club.  When at this stage it was confirmed that the problem related to the language issue - he went bananas and claimed otherwise.   However, Racing Metro refused to release him from his contract and insisted he stayed on for the full contract.  His   contract has now been extended for three years until 2020.

So our moronic members think they know better about rugby than the Racing Metro management.

Why do we have to have the two morons on the site?   Perhaps it makes the site more interesting - at least some members correct their idiocies.   What we should all know by now - if the two makes a rugby statement - just accept the opposite is true.     

Seldom can one definitively write off a player as young as Goosen was when playing here. The guy has talent and I wish him well. Wonder if he will return or qualify for France at some point.

 Beeno
He cannot qualify for France - since he played for the Springboks in 2012.

@brother beeno,

"Wonder if he will return or qualify for France at some point."

a wonderful question worthy of that tr-ump avatar, LMAO,

goosen is far too young to discard though, and playing with the best 10 to ever grace the game is only going to enhance his skills.

im loving this time hes spending in the centers though, utility players are very valuable IMO, if ur forced to choose between two quality 10s who are in similar form, and one of them can play another position, logic dictates u choose the one who can cover more bases.

would be nice if goose man would return to the cheetahs, dear lord do those peeps need all the help they can get.

 His idiotic side-kick Ceradunce came with a story about a year ago that Goosen had problems with his club.

You just never learn, do you? I did not "come up with stories". This were facts that came out after an article appeared where his coach made certain remarks to the media. I merely commented on them. The strange part is that your comments proved to be BS. My comments eventually turned out to be more realistic. I said that there were two options. Either he stick to his (then) current ways by not doing his part in training and on the field as well as stick to his off-field duties as well, or he change his ways and bring his side. The former would obviously resulted in an early release from his contract. That was not my version. That was the coaches clear ultimatum to Goosen. The other option was to change his ways and do his part and he could have a great career with the club. Once again, that was not my version. It was a clear indication from his coach.

The fact, now, is that he clearly chose to follow the second option and he has become an integral part of his club. I have commended him  on various occasions for that, and if you had the slightest hint of honesty in you, which I doubt, you would acknowledge that little detail.

Now, I reacted to a story in the media. You, on the other, chose to gargle up some BS story that you (allegedly) heard from Meyer Bosman's mom of all people. F@k maar jy is dig.

When at this stage it was confirmed that the problem related to the language issue - he went bananas and claimed otherwise.

Hahahaha. You were the one who went bananas when I pointed out that the language lessons was one small part of the issue. In any case, if he did  not play his part in learning French, then you cannot blame his coach for questioning his commitment. All the players who move to France has learning French as one of their top priorities. When Johnny Wilkinson decided to move to France, the first thing that he did was to learn the language and on his arrival at Toulon, when he addressed the media, he did it in French. A reporter asked him a question in English and he replied in French. That is commitment, mate.

Be that as it may, I have said, and I still believe it, that the language lessons was a minor part of the issue. His coach,in the article, elaborated on his playing and traing and said that he has to improve on that, or else he might not see the end of his contract at the club, amd then he also mentioned the language lessons.

However, Racing Metro refused to release him from his contract and insisted he stayed on for the full contract.

That is also  BS. I have not seen a single article where he asked for an early release or of his club refusing such a release. I am sure that, at the time of that article, and probably at the end of the previous season, if he asked for a release, he would have  gotten it. I am basing that purely on what his coach said in the media. Maybe you could ask Meyer Bosman's mom again, for clarity on that one. Hahaha.

In addition to all of the above, may I say again, that I am glad that he has obviously now found his feet at the club and gets much more game time. In any case, if he is that serious of playing 10, then where better to hone his skills than being on the field and  playing in the same team as Daniel Carter. A fact that wasn't even on the horizon at the time when I allegedly went bananas.

Put that your pipe and smoke it, doos.

 Ag Kak from Ceradunce again - when he tried to discredit the language issue - he was talking his normal BS.   What the dofdoos fail to realize was that Goosen was in negotiations wioth the Strormers and there were a refusal by Racing Metro to release him.  
Now back to the issue of the language.  Bosman and Goosen are friends and Bosman said that it was the language issue that caused the story.   He tried to discredit that statement and as per normal came up with his own BS.  
This kind of contribution reminds me of his statement that 1795 preceded 1707 in the calender - the same type of tripe that dofdoos always specializes in.   He specializes in when he tries to find his own moronic impressions on what he read.         

 " Ag Kak from Ceradunce again - when he tried to discredit the language issue - he was talking his normal BS.   What the dofdoos fail to realize was that Goosen was in negotiations wioth the Strormers and there were a refusal by Racing Metro to release him."

BS. Show us the evidence. My guess, and it is a guess only, is that RM have rightfully claimed a transfer fee. I am not sure. Maybe you could consult Meyer Bosman's mom and get the facts for us.

I am also not discrediting the language issue at all. Maybe I have been right all along. You do have a comprehension issue. My contention is that the language issue was a (small) part of a much bigger issue. You, on the other hand discarded all that the coach said about his performances on the playing field and on the training field and claimed that the language issue was the one and only issue. Why? Because Meyer Bosman's mom, who is sitting somewhere in SA, has told you so. Maybe she is in regular contact with the RM coach. She has to be. Hert son plays for Stade Francais, after all.

Be that as it may. The crux of the matter though, is that Goosen obviously got his (entire) act together and is producing the goods, hence the change in attitude from his coach, who changed from criticising Goosen in the media to renewing his contract. See what a little change in a player's attitude can bring him? You should try the same sometime.

"This kind of contribution reminds me of his statement that 1795 preceded 1707 in the calender - the same type of tripe that dofdoos always specializes in.   He specializes in when he tries to find his own moronic impressions on what he read. "

Hahaha. I see you are still embarrassed by having your butt kicked so comprehensively. Why don't you go to the thread, in question, so that we can continue this one on there. Oh wait. You wouldn't dare because then you would have everybody focussed on what a big doos you actually are and what an utter p@epol you made of yourself. In case you still refuse to return to that thread, then try to explain this.

How was it possible for the UK, to be involved in the Cape in 1795, when it was only formed in 1801. Also please explain to us the difference between the Kingdom of Great Britain, that came about in 1707 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that came about in 1801.

You see. That is where your poor comprehension skills comes into play. The Kingdom of Great Britain, that came about in 1707, was still in power in 1795. The UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) came about in 1801 and therefore my remark that there was no UK in 1795, was 100% spot-on. Your mistake, on the other hand, is that you do not understand what the differences between the 1707 statae and the 1801 state were, which is why you cannot understand the concept that there was no UK that could have any influence in the Cape in 1795.

Hope I haven't confused you even more. Now go back and reclaim your school fees.

 Comrade Mike ... we don't want, nor do we need fragile jack of all traders playing for the national side.
We need specialist in every position.
Apart from being injury prone, he's never impressed consistently. 
Yes, we saw him dazzle us once or twice ... but then so did Earl Rose ... would you consider the "Tiger Woods" of Rugby as test material??
I'm afraid Comrade "Clever" Mike ... you've consistently exposed yourself as a bit of an ignorant chump when it comes to the sport of rugby. 
You should seriously consider removing the "clever" from your name and replacing it with something a little more suitable. 
"Comrade" sounds about right ... 

   

 Ceradunce
Are you nuts or something - the increase of the UK in 1801 to incorporate Ireland did not gave only one effect - namely to cater the Ireland issue.   If you go and ind the history of the United Kingdom - very history book will reflec t as it coming into being in 1707 - not 1801.
However, even if the 1801 issue is taken into account, the English occupied the Cape Colony in 1795 and governed the Cape from 1795 to 1803 and again  in 1806.  The formation of the UK had no material impact on the Government of the English colonies outside of Great Britain.   However, you knowledge of history is on par with that of rugby issues - ie dangerously ineffective.                

 Ag gann praat jou kak op 'n ander plek man.

You cannot even be honest with yourself, let alone anybody else. It is no wonder that you have been in cahoots with the ANC. You, like them, like to change the history books.

Just look at all the k@k you are talking.

If you go and ind the history of the United Kingdom - very history book will reflect as it coming into being in 1707 - not 1801.

No. It did not. have a look at this one, which is not Wikipedia:

England and Scotland

In 1603 England and Scotland shared the same king. King James VI of Scotland became also James I of England.

James I was very keen to be King of Great Britain, and from 1606 Scots were officially called English citizens. However, it wasn't until 1652, that the two countries were united together through force by Oliver Cromwell. The Scots had never accepted this action.

Kingdom of Great Britain

In 1707 the Act of Union meant that Scotland lost her Parliament and her independence and became part of a new country to be called 'Kingdom of Great Britain'.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

In 1801 a second Act of Union was passed, creating yet another new country, the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 removed mainland Ireland from the UK. Six northern Irish counties (Northern Ireland) remained part of the UK.

The current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927

There you have it again. There was, as I have said, no UK in 1795 and certainly not in 1707.

Now, suddenly, you have decided that it was the English who occupied the Cape. It was not. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Also now suddenly "...the formation of the UK had no material impact on the government of the English colonies outside of Great Britain...".

There were no fcuking English colonies outside of Great Britain. Only British colonies under the rule of the Kingdom of Great Britain. In addition, are you now suddenly going to negate the role of the Scottish in the Cape as well. That would be, among others, the Scottish teachers and missionaries, etc?

Gaan p1s en gaan rus man. I am not a history boffin, and has never given myself out to be one, but I can distinguish between horse sh1t and figs and what you are trying to feed us aint no figs, mate.

 The Stuarts took over after Queen Elizabeth I died - but they were separately crowned as Kings or Queens in London iro the English throne  and in Scone iro of the Scottish throne.  There were to separate Parliaments operating in England and Scotland.   It was changed only in 1707 - the Acts of Union passed by both Parliaments (England in 1706 and Scotland in 1707.   After that the Parliaments were combined and the Kings/Queens were crowned in London with the Stone of Scone used during the ceremonies.  
The Act of Union was the starting point of the establishment of the UK - and the rest of your drivel is immaterial.  Look your whole history is well known and is total BS.   Go and learn not to try and leave out the immaterial drivel.       

 You should stop digging, mate. You can harp on about the Stuarts, and whoever you want to, it will not negate the truth of my simple remark: "There was no UK in 1795..." Period. You can quote whatever piece of  history you want to, it will help  you nothing, nada, zip, f@kol. History is facts that you cannot change.

 Funny thread.  Tokkie is getting a little thrill because Goosen is finally a functional club player. Although I note he is still learning, admits he still needs the help of the players around him, and is mostly not playing 10.
Those who claimed this guy was never going to be the answer to Bok 10 are looking good.

 He is ten times better a player than your hero M orne Steyn ever was and 20 times better than Far Fransie.  

 Well I didn't read the whole argument, please pardon if this has been dealt with. Goosen was approached by Gert Smal to lure him to the Stormers. This was just a short while after his French coach washed laundry about Goosen in the media. Goosen was keen to move to CT, but his club refused to release him. This was confirmed by his agent and Gert Smal in "Die Burger" last year. I don't have a link because I read it on hard copy.

 Facts must never interfere with Ceradunce aka Dofdoos's thinking on any issues.    

 Hey Comrade, you need to look no further than this thread from top to bottom to see who really battle to distinguish between fact and BS. 

 There is just one idiot on this site who believes his own BS about Goosen and believe that the UK does not stem from the Act of Union of 1707.  

 I can just feel the love!

 If ou Comrade Ballas says that the moon is made of cheese, then the moon is made of cheese. No matter that there is no documented evidence to that effect. 

 So there was no report in Die Burger about negotiations of Smal with Racing metro to allow Goosen to join the Stormers requiring release of Goosen from the rest of his contract.  Racing metro refused to reply - but Dofdoos says otherwise - so everything must be false.
Then there are various websites dealing with the Act of Union which can be googled dealing with the Act of Union between England and Scotland of 1707 - which effectively established the UK in that year.   But the idiot believes that he knows better than historians do and so his version is correct.
Lunatics like him generally believe they are sane and the rest of the world population insane - so we can leave that issue to rest and accept their is nothing to be done to get him from his insane ideas.  
Dofdoos he is and dofdoos he will remain.     

 Uhm. Once again. The Acts if union in 1707 - yes, there were two - did not establish the United Kingdom. They established the Kingdom of Great Britain. You figured out why I say that there were two Acts of Union in 1707?

 There were two Acts - one in 2006 in the English Parliament in 1706 and one in the Scottish Parliament in 1707 - so the United Kingdom was created after the second vote.  So one Act only in 1707.
So suddenly all quiet about the Goosen issue - that was another example of your self-believe in your own stupidity.         

 You cannot even got past the UK issue and now you want to tackle the Goosen one? How many more times do I need to prove to you that there was no fcuking UK until 1801. That is a fact. What you have said, about the start of the UK in 1707, above was as big a load of BS as your other one elsewhere where you talked about the English colonies outside of Great Britain. Hahaha. 

 Oom Mike. Before you dig yourself deeper.
If you’re curious when these unions between the countries that comprise the UK came about, it happened as follows:  England and Wales were joined in 1536.  Scotland and England were joined together in 1707, along with the previously joined Wales, to officially form the Kingdom of Great Britain.  Ireland decided to join up in 1801, at which point the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed.  In 1922, however, many of the Southern counties of Ireland decided to remove themselves from the union and the UK changed their name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

 @Xavi. That is exactly what I have been telling the old fart over and over again, yet he is convinced that the UK came about in 1707 and that it was the UK that was involved in the Cape in 1795. He would not hear anything about the Kingdom of Great Britain. Nah, in his eyes the UK and the Kingdom of Great Britain is one and the same.
Then, just to top it all, he also mentioned the English colonies outside the Kingdom of Great Britain. 

What does this even mean:

'Two Acts - one in 2006 in the English Parliament in 1706 and one in the Scottish Parliament in 1707 - so the United Kingdom was created after the second vote.  So one Act only in 1707.'

What act in 2006 does she have in mind?

 Cannot deal with dofdose and liars and there are two of those in evidence here.      

 No don't be intimidated, just explain.

H This reminds me of the time when ou Tokkie was trying to convince us that Stade Francais was flogging Morne Steyn off to Paris Saint Germain.