Vunipola vs CJ Stampkar

 Vunipola.....72 runs/ 325 metres/24 defenders beaten/8 offloads

Stampkar.... 87 runs/ 119metres/8 defenders beaten/1offload

So Stampkar is 1.3 metres a run....Vunipola is 4.3 metres a run
Stampkar beats a defender every 11 runs....Vunipola beats a defender every 3 runs
Stampkar offloads once every 87 runs, man is that not the definition of Stampkar rugby? Vuinipola offloads every 9 runs.
Amazing differences in productivity. And we are told 1.3 metres per run is stellar.....amazing hype.

 Mozart was playing at 6 - blindside flank - Vunipola at 8.   An 8 has a much bigger space to operate in than a blindside flank has.  One of the functions of an 8 is to fall back to help collect the opposing team kicks and he can run meters in that case.  The latter factor has a major impact on meters ran and passing.  Please compare apples with apples.  Use another blindside flank to compare with, please.    

Oh okay, let's look at the performance of the last South African blindside against Six Nation opposition. That's fair isn't it. Happens to be Schalk Burger against Wales in the WC QF....as tight and brutal at it gets. Twenty six runs, 59 metres, one opponent beaten, 2 offloads....and 14 passes for good measure........schplott!
S BurgerF1142659012

Wow so now we have a blindside being compared to a No 8....Moz I'll leave it at that. It's not worth the effort....you don't know your rugby at all

 Mozart
I would rather forget about the Welsh test you refer to - it was the worst strategy test ever and Burger was the stand-in flyhalf that day and got double the balls the actual flyhalf got.   A disgusting team display and won because of a defensive fault by the one Welsh wing - otherwise we would have lost the game.   A disgraceful game where the Springboks had 59% and made one proper move with the ball and was in opposition territory and did bugger-all constructive with the balls they got.   

 The only guy who doesn't know his rugby is the guy who thinks a metre a run, game after game, is great performance. Stampkar is a mature guy, I can see how he looked good at junior level when he was probably a more developed player.
But now at senior level.....he is slow as you can readily see in Hogg's try.....he has no hands, hell he hardly got a pass away all 6N......and he is not strong, he beats a a tackle every 11 runs. I don't believe Coetzee is a top international flank, but he is 10 times the player Stampkar is.

 And by the way Dave, just so you aren't condemned to perpetual ignorance, you will see the Burger numbers come from the WCQF...blindside to blindside....schplott.

A blindside getting the ball 41 times speaks volumes for the ignorant coaches game plan.
That test will be forever remembered for Schalk being our sad excuse for a 10
Meyer at his best!!

 Mozart
Sorry to disagree - but you always supported Alberts and now criticized Stander for deficient speed - while an even worse speed deficiency applied to Alberts.   I cannot understand how a deficiency of one player is OK in your mind and in the case of another player it is not.  
Anyway Stander is twice the player Alberts ever was.  I would much rather have had him in the Springbok squad than the useless Alberts, as well as even the stand-in flyhalf you so ardently supports.   The horror of Burger in the Japan test was enough to make me say that.       

 So let me make it even more directly comparable....Stampkar vs Wales in the 6N, Burger vs Wales in the WC. Both playing blindside flank.
Burger 59 metres in 26 runs/2 offloads/14 passes
Stampkar 38 metres in 23 runs/0 offload/3 passes
So blather away as much as you like, the facts are absolutely transparent, Schalk was far  more productive.

Burger, even wearing the number 7 on his back, was playing as a flyhalf,.... as the first receiver in the backline,..... nothing to do with a blindside running in traffic

 Oh I see....Pollard got the ball 39 times against Wales, but Burger played flyhalf. No matter let's choose Louw the open sider, he couldn't have been at flyhalf as well....7 runs, 30 metres, 1 clean break, 2 defenders beaten. Twice as many Wallies beaten in 7 runs as Stamkar managed in 23....more than twice as many metres per carry.

You guys are so easy....schplottt!

 Mozart
Burger got the ball 41 times  - so he was more of a flyhalf than Pollard was.  At least 10 of the cases where Pollard got the ball it was recovery of Wales kicks.  So he got the ball 29 times standing at flyhalf.  
So Burger in fact got the large majority of his balls factually playing at flyhalf.    Sorry - but that game represented a very poor rugby game plan and is hopefully never ever to be repeated.    

 Yep and FDu Preez got the ball 127 times and Vermeulen got it 22 times. Lomp got it 13 times...ran 11 and managed to gain measly 7 metres. Perhaps they were fly halves as well...schplott!

 Mozart
The most balls were still passed to Burger - whether you like it or not.  A sick game plan to ensure that the ball is constantly passed to forwards - with most going to Burger - so much so that he got more than the flyhalf - so what must one assume?  

 You are off point Tokkie. I am not arguing for our game plan....you thought we would lose, we won. Enough said.
My argument is CJ Stander at 1.5 metres a run against Wales looks  feeble relative to Louw at 7.2 metres a run, Vermeulen at 6 metres a run, Alberts at 2.6 metres a run and Burger at 2.3 metres a run. 
He'll everybody talks in awe of how many runs Stampkar made.....who cares how many times he tried. Did he penetrate, get the defence on the back foot, offload to runners who continued the momentum.

The answer is nope....he pretty much ploughed in and got knocked down by the first tackler.

 I am afraid you are missing the point.  Burger was put in space here with more space to use than he would have when a standard/normal game plan was used.    What happened in that test was that a terribly poor Bulls game plan of 2004-05 was used - a plan that was made possible because that was Du Preez's natural  game at the time.
The result was a near disaster - with a lucky win by 4 points being the result.  Even Vermeulen admitted that he disobeyed instructions when he off-loaded a ball to Du Preez to score a try.
Be it as it may - Burger was used in a unnatural game plan situation - and so were the other forwards - while the flyhalf was not properly used.   No other coach would have used that abomination as a game plan.   The highest percentage of balls used was Burger and to claim that he did well in ball carries as what many regards as stand-in flyhalf makes the test a very poor one to use as a means to account for ball carries and territory gain.      

'An unnatural game plan situation' ......hahaha, you should know.

 That game plan is not and never will be used by any other coach and country.  That is why it is a totally unnatural abomination.  

The stats from this article pretty much confirm what I've been saying for many years now . . . the worst ball carrier in the country is the guy with the most ball carries!

Absolutely crazy! He has 50 carries in the 2016 Super Rugby season already yet he could only make 55 metres? From 50 carries???

What is he doing carrying it so much if he's such a weak carrier?

Skulk is a great ball-winner but he's absolutely useless as a flyhalf and his obsession with being first receiver is a big reason why the Springboks have been so crap for so long.

I do not think Burger ever was a player to be used as a crashballer and turning him into that role made him totally ineffective,  The most terrible example of ineffectiveness was in the famous Japan test where he spilled 4 balls when pretending to be a crashballer.
However, it seems that after his long absence from rugby he lost the top abilities he used to display.  Maybe this was the result of the disastrous coaching by Coetzee and Meyer causing him to lose his effectiveness as a loosie.   
I have not been impressed by his performances in the WC and neither was I impressed with his performances for the Stormers this year.  Bog ordinary/ average at the best of times.    

 Well if RooiAAS is right and 55metres in 50 carries or 1.1 metres per carry is "crap". Then surely 119metres in 87 carries or 1.3 metres a carry is more sustained "crap". 
Look Dave I know you are making an attempt to defend your man, but all this guy did was either pick the ball or get a short pass.....and then charge straight forward, only to be dropped by the first tackler. He took a few lineouts, made a middling amount of tackles.

Other than make a lot of runs, what was exceptional? As for all the plaudits, if you listened to the commentary they were pre programmed, they were raving about this guy before he stepped on the field against Wales.

Let's see how he goes against an SH pack in June.

Moz that's the role of a blindside, to take it up short and set up the next phase, no different to Etzebeth who like a blindside is there to operate in traffic. I don't get how this obvious fact escapes you. He is not playing as an openside or 8 who are afforded the luxuary of sometimes operating in space. CJ plays 8 for Munster, where his metres per carry and defenders beaten will be higher for his role is different. If your expectations of a blindside are higher, that he is meant to operate in space, beat defenders act as link then you clearly don't know your rugby and what does it say of the other blindsides in the 6N's? They achieved less than CJ did, were less effective, that's why CJ made the team of the 6N's......he performed his role very well. He operated in traffic and gained a metre plus per carry......its the norm......unless of course in your eyes, players operating in traffic miraculously carry defenders for metres at a time......that defences are so poor that they are unable to contain players running at them.....or better still that players operating in traffic are meant to side step the opposition You just don't get it do you? CJ is and always has been a fantastic player, a huge loss to SA.......would walk the Bok side right now......far better player than the likes of Schalk and Alberts who have operated at 7 for SA and currently playing better at 8 for Munster than Vermeulen is for Toulon at 8 Your prejudice against this guy is childish.......let me guess, him being named Munster player of the year, winning MOM on test debut and now making the 6N's side of the tournament, is all a load of rubbish......that everyone out there is wrong about him and you of course are right Give it a break man, move on

Utter rubbish, I could give you example after example of blindside runners breaking the defence. Here's Jerome Kaino:
In the WC QF
J KainoF038331100



In the WC Semi finalJ KainoF001042110

In the WC final... J KainoF0212381100
Dave you talk so much rubbish it's amazing. You are dead wrong but insulting at the same time....a rugby moron.
You have spent so much time watching the stodgy NH game you think a SH team would be happy with 1 metre a run from the blindside.
Let me tell you what is going to happen with Stampkar against the Boks....they are going to monster him.....he will be a target and humiliated. Hell NZ would have the ball off those upright runs in no time. Scotland...hahaha.....catch a wake up.

Oh boy Moz, brace yourself for being embarrassed one more time....but before we get there, yes, please provide me with many examples of blindside flankers breaking defences in traffic
For a start, Kaino certainly did not achieve those stats in traffic.....the Kiwi's used Kaino as their expansive loosie along with Read to less of an extent.....the obvious reason for that being that Richie has hardly ever been your classic openside with ball in hand.....Kaino is their openfield runner
Lets look at those stats you brought up and compare ALL the loosies that played thereby putting CJ Stander into perspective
NZ vs France QF (carries/metres gained)
McCaw 6/8             Dusautoir 6/6Kaino 8/33             Roux 7/7Read 7/20              Picamoles 9/66
NZ vs SA SF
McCaw 8/12           Louw 4/0Kaino 10/42           Schalk 8/4Read 7/13              Vermeulen 8/12
NZ v Oz F
McCaw 12/27         Hooper 7/7Kaino 12/38           Fardy 4/3Read 12/26            Pocock 10/3
Moz the only person that is insulting here is you for you are incapable of distinguishing between a player operating in space versus one in traffic.....which SA forward is going to dominate CJ? Now be a sport and answer my question....why is it ok for Eben to gain 1m per carry in traffic, but if CJ does the same he is poor
Judging by your brilliant logic and judging by the stats above.....95% of the loosies above are pretty crap aren't they.....well if we go by your logic they are
Now take a dose of your own medicine and catch a wake up......go study the art of this game and then come back to me and tell me that a metre gained per carry in traffic is not par......that CJ's role as a blindside was to carry in traffic.....a job he did very well so much so he was rewarded with a MOM and blindside of the 6N's
You really are clueless......but Moz according to your logic its clear that McCaw, Hooper, Fardy, Pocock, Louw, Schalk, Vermeulen, Dusautoir and Roux are all crap players given you have CJ down as just that.
I was going to say lets keep an eye out on the blindsides stats this super series but there is no point.....super rugby is not test rugby

 A metre gained in traffic is low threshold ....every NZ loose forward in every playoff game, that's nine data points......beat that threshold. The losing teams playing against the best team in the game didnt do as well....but of the nine data points only 4 were worse than a metre a run. In all 11 of the 18 data points were better than the threshold.....better than Stampkar.

And all of that took place against much tougher opposition than Stampkar faced. Get real, the guy is a committed crash ball runner, not one that is difficult to bring down.
Case closed by your own data.

 Say Moz, do you know of any SAFFA players you would regard as having the X factor ? Players with vision and creativity above the norm?

 Haha....how about Jantjies, I mean X factor only comes with huge bottle, right?

I used 1m as an average for carrying in traffic......CJ is beyond a metre, pretty much on par with McCaw and Read, who happens to be an 8 operating in space at times.....CJ's stats are better than the other loosies in those matches quoted above
Moz you could never close a case if you tried for your pathetic prejudice rules when the stats, evidence, facts and opinions of the experts go against your prejudicial garbage.
Its those expert commentators who have waxed lyrical about CJ all 6N's and no none of the commentators are Irish......and its other experts who have selected him for the 6N's side of the tournament......which is more than enough evidence to confirm what a rugby fool you are......but let me guess, we are to believe you are the authority and that all these experts are wrong
I'll leave it at that......but am still waiting for your explanation as to why its ok for Eben to gain 1m per carry in traffic, but that same principle does not apply to CJ......are you going to ever answer this one.....it does not only apply to Eben.....same applies to all players operating in traffic but Eben's stats spring to mind.

I see the half cast is yapping again?

So just to prove not all locks are as piss poor as Stampkar, let's look at the NZ locks  in the WC knockouts.
vs France.....B RetallickL07635100
vs the SpringboksB RetallickL0610240001
And Whitelock vs Oz
S WhitelockL00917010
So we see locks are capable of substantially outgaining Stampkar's paltry 1.3 metres a game. But here's the thing, Stampkar's whole thing is running the ball. Look  at how many runs he makes whines the Irish commentator. Sure, but how many of them actually gave Ireland any momentum? Maybe 1 in 15.
And then look at his role apart from this. He is poor on the deck with an exaggerated unnatural scooping action. 
He hardly ever commits to the ruck....it's the other Irish forwards piling in while Stampkar peals off to stand at number 2 in the defensive line.
His cover defence is a non starter, he is too slow as we saw when He couldn't get anywhere near Hogg despite having a good angle.
I can't see what the fuss is...he isn't fast, he can't fetch, he's not a big tackler, he doesn't break tackles and he charges straight in without ever offloading...a dead end runner.
Sorry, but I have never understood the hype and now the palpable excitement of the Irish commentator is most revealed in his constant use of "CJ" Stander, when he hardly ever mentions the first names of other players. Hell its not like there is another Stampkar on the field....haha.

 The one thing I cannot understand about your discussions is how you can call Stander a stampkar player and fail to appreciate that Alberts were not even a stampkar player - he was worse than a stampkar player - yet you supported him all out.
I also fail to understand how you support Burger - who was against his natural talent used as a stampkar player and failed badly in that usage.   Yet you fail to accept that as a stampkar player Burger is a serious flop.   
It really is not wis e to campaign about the issue of stampkar play - most of the players you supported in the past failed even that test miserably - so lets get away from the stampkar issue - which in fact is still found in Europe and virtually eliminated in the SH -  I say virtually because there are still players like Burger trying to use it as a weapon.
Loosies should be loosies - not re-designed Tight 5 players to make up deficiencies in players used as Tight 5 players.  I reckon that rubbish went out of the door with the departure of the useless Matfield from the scene.     

 This thread is about Stampkar. If you want to open another thread about Alberts be my guest.

 Albert was too poor to be a real stampkar player - but he has the reputation to be a stampkar player.  So that is not really foreign to what is discussed here.  
However, that was not the only issue raised by me - the other issue was the attempt to turn Burger into a stampkar player - with poor results for his team and for the player himself.  It may also be that Burger lost the mojo he used to have and is not capable to play the game he used to become famous for.
Be it as it may you are known to support stampkar rugby and is also known to criticize players for playing stampkar rugby when it fits your book.
My own approach has always been that stampkar rugby is the worst non-thinking game imaginable and was always a factor that was detrimental to SA Rugby.   However, I do not think you are understanding that issue - as well as the fact that stampkar rugby rules in the NH - while in the SH it is an abomination.   In other words as a blindsider Stander is forced to play stampkar rugby for Ireland.   

 This thread is about Stampkar. If you want to open a thread on Alberts be my guest.

 Mozart
What I said I do not understand is that you attack some players because they play stampkar rugby - but support others who do play stampkar rugby even  worse than the players you criticize,   That is the critical question you refuse to answer?
Is it OK for players you like and support to play stampkar rugby but not so for players you dislike?