FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Wales beat the Boks 9 points to 7

Wales beat the Boks 9 points to 7

Started by Mozart37 REPLIES615 VIEWS· 10 Nov 2013, 18:59
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Nov 2013, 18:59
#1
10 Nov 2013, 18:59#1

Okay that's not true, but it is true for the period Lambie was playing flyhalf. So much for Dave's comment that is was a good thing Morne went off because we won the game.

 

So what do we make of Lambie's rather long, 63 minute stint, at flyhalf. We are told by the Lambie apologists that we can't judge him because he didn't train at flyhalf. Forget the fact that he played a CC final at flyhalf only two weeks ago and he was obviously covering flyhalf if Morne got hurt. There is some mystery the coaching staff never  told him about.

 

You might say, what about Barrett. When he brushed off a flailing JJ he was also a sub....but of course that's just an inconvenient fact.

 

Personally I think yesterday was very disappointing. With the match well in Bok hands when he switched to flyhalf, Lambie had a chance to confirm his much lauded CC final performance. He didn't, with inept goal kicks, poorly judged drops, weak runs which isolated him and two terrible open side cross kicks, which in one case could easily have led to a dangerous Welsh break away. It was inept.

 

That CC performance was also bumbling until he notched his first drop....with two simple kicks botched. After the drop he seemed to gain confidence and his general play became adequate if not really spectacular. As our running flyhalf option I can't recall him beating a tackle....but still it was better.

 

At the beginning of the year I picked Lambie as the player most likely to flourish. But he has gone backwards....significantly. The S15 killed his confidence.

 

Morne is still Morne....our version O Gara. A guy who accumulates points but has weaknesses. He should be vulnerable, but Goosen has his injuries and Lambie doesn't look like an international flyhalf. In fact, yesterday he looked like a small, slow, nervous chap without any real plan of action....indecisive. At least with Morne he knows what he is going to do.

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
10 Nov 2013, 19:08
#2
10 Nov 2013, 19:08#2
Its funny how Barrett only brushed off JJ.......last I checked he did the same to Jean and Morne........but somehow its always only JJ.......what a laugh.......its good that the facts actually tell us otherwise.

On Lambie vs Morne, its not about who did what in which minute its about the better rugby player in Lambie playing instead of the inferior player Morne........games are not won or lost in the first 17 min. The only thing that stands out about Morne in those first 17 min was his pathetic attempt at tackling Davies.

The bottom line is, Lambie is a better player than Morne and we need our best players in the Bok side. Lambie did not have a great or bad game, he was solid and thats all we can ask from a lad who had mentally prepared to play 15 all week.

Morne should never play for the Boks again.......Goosen is our premier 10, with Lambie pushing
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
10 Nov 2013, 19:13
#3
10 Nov 2013, 19:13#3
i like ur thinking mozter, lets hope meyer sees it that way too, cos the Boks are the No2 team in the world, and with morne in the equation, All blacks will never be anything but No1 for a long time yet, :oD

IMO Boks attack looked very good with lambie at 10, much better then it ever has with morne.

if the Boks really want to catch up with the All Blacks, then they need to start playing players like gossen and lambie ahead of morne.
du ppreez had an outstanding game, but van zyl, reianch these are the players who should be given a shot, as these are the players who will be there in the future.

by the looks of things though, meyer has made up his mind and this is the Boks core squad for the RWC, so sticking with them now is prob logical.
good news of rthe All Blacks though, cos thats one less team for us to have to worry about come the RWC.

BTW barret brushed aside JDV with ease, he beat jj, but thats a good leson for jj who was also marking another player, dont trust in overrated JDV, wait for serfontein to be the incumbent, then at least jj knows he wont have to do another teammates job either.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Nov 2013, 19:18
#4
10 Nov 2013, 19:18#4
Actually Barret never brushed aside JdV....Jean never laid a finger on him. JJ had two arms full of Barrett...spot the difference. Which is not to say Jean wasn't also culpable.  
MD
Monkey D LuffyPro6,277 posts
10 Nov 2013, 19:27
#5
10 Nov 2013, 19:27#5
yup, JDV couldnt even touch barret after being brushed aside so easily by NZs 3rd best flyhalf,


interesting that JDV rush defence which lost the Boks the test and the RC/4nats was very effective against the welsh, gatland should have done his homework me thinks, maybe he was still in lions victory mode???
cant blame the poor bugger, only two lion series win in the professional era, against the Boks and now the wallabies.


SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
10 Nov 2013, 19:29
#6
10 Nov 2013, 19:29#6
Barrett beat Jean and brushed off Morne and JJ.........the difference is I state the facts, you keep telling us that only JJ missed Barrett and that's simply not true.


Sas you are spot on......while Morne is our pivot, we have no chance of EVER challenging your side for the number 1 spot. The man has a 60% win record playing for the Boks........what better evidence do we need that the guy is a test flop
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Nov 2013, 20:01
#7
10 Nov 2013, 20:01#7
You are biased Dave. Here is the sequence. JdV rushes up on Bar rett who steps inside ....he overruns the tackle. An error of commission, trying to force the play.

Morne gets Barrett at the last second on his outside. He forces Barrett to his left without having a firm grasp of him. Straight into JJ's arms. It happens all the time you leave the player to the next man when he is moving laterally.
The problem was JJ simply made a pathetic, gutless tackle 
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
10 Nov 2013, 20:16
#8
10 Nov 2013, 20:16#8
Mozart:egads, your starting to employ Beeno logic - "final scoreboard doesn't count".  
But Beeno uses this "logic" to argue a loss is a win & you use it to prove a win can be seen as a loss, lol
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Nov 2013, 20:30
#9
10 Nov 2013, 20:30#9

The thing is JW I predicted JJ (no relation I hope) was going to cost us defensively. But I never imagined his defensive lapse would be the final act in our quest to win the RC.

SH
ShezzaPro2,471 posts
10 Nov 2013, 22:25
#10
10 Nov 2013, 22:25#10
 A cup is always half empty with Moz.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
10 Nov 2013, 22:59
#11
10 Nov 2013, 22:59#11
Wrong Moz no bias at all........Jean was the worst offender for if you rush you best make an impact and stop the man with ball in hand for the rush breaks the defensive alignment.
Barrett stepped past Jean with ease as Jean's rush was poorly executed......Barrett then headed straight between Morne and JJ, for he was looking to attack space. The cardinal rule is for the inside defender to tackle the man with ball in hand, its rugby basics.......Barrett was Morne's man, with JJ covering wide.

Morne made a pathetic attempt to tackle Barrett by going high, he got both hands on Barrett......all the time JJ was still covering wide.......when JJ realised that his inside defender had missed his man, he had to turn and try tackle Barrett from behind.....his alignment was never going to be set up to make a proper low tackle, the best he could do was go high and he missed Barrett. Had JJ been in Morne's spot as the inside defender......Barrett would never have got past him.

So first offender was Jean, second Morne, third JJ and lastly Kirchner........blaming JJ alone is laughable and utter rubbish
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
10 Nov 2013, 23:25
#12
10 Nov 2013, 23:25#12

Mozart

 

Just one question - how did Morne forced Barrett to go to the outside towards Engelbrecht?   That would have been possible if he made an even half-decent attempt to tackle Barrett - not by slapping him on the back as he in fact did.

 

You went on and on about Morne being on the field of play when the Springboks scored 17 points - yet he did not contribute an iota to De Villiers' try - Lambie was the one who was responsible for the ball recovery that let to the run of Habana leading up to the try. Morne was nowhere in sight - as he was also nowhere in sight in the case of the Du Plessis try.  

 

You really can only credit Morne if he played a critical role in one or either of the two tries - so your contribution is a thumbsuck and a  theory with no value at all - in other words totally meaningless as a point of argument.  

 

Sasue is correct - if we keep Morne at flyhalf we would never do better than no 2 in world rugby - we may even slide down further.   Morne's contribution or lack thereof in the Ellis Park test cost us dearly and there is no indication that he ever did anything of substance in crucial tests in the past either - other than his kicks at goal - and even in that case it was a lottery in the past and will be a lottery in future.            

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Nov 2013, 02:06
#13
11 Nov 2013, 02:06#13
Look, with respect OOM ,  you have had the Boks losing to Oz and Wales, you don't seem to have a grasp of what's happening.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Nov 2013, 03:25
#14
11 Nov 2013, 03:25#14

Mozart

 

I ask you a simple question - what role did Morne play in any of the tries being scored while he was on the field of play - to get an idea about how you try to give him credit for the lead early on in the match?   That is to get an idea of whether the thread  started by you have any logic to it.

 

Since you were caught out AGAIN - the only real escape was the diversion tactic.  That does not help - start again and please explain to me the role of Morne in the tries being scored.  Simple question really - did he have a role or did he not have a role. 

 

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Nov 2013, 04:13
#15
11 Nov 2013, 04:13#15

The role he played? Well he converted both of them. Plus he kicked a penalty...so as usual he had nearly half of our points when he went off. Games are won by the team with the most points, in case you had forgotten. 

 

Lambie by contrast made 2 out of a possible 11 points.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Nov 2013, 07:33
#16
11 Nov 2013, 07:33#16

Mozart

 

Why don't you give  straight answer - did he or did he not play role in the plays leading up to the tries?   Whether he converted both had nothing to do with it.   In any event the conversion of he tries and the penalty kick were all three easy kicks at goal - a school boy would have converted those.     

TT
The_TruthClub Pro471 posts
11 Nov 2013, 09:21
#17
11 Nov 2013, 09:21#17
 Rugby is a team sport you idiot! The correlation between missed tackles and tries are not direct, yet you don't blame Willie le Roux for anything, yet he had 5 missed tackles out of a possible 5 and the All Blacks scored 5 tries. And yes he made zero (0%) tackles.

There were 28 missed tackles. Add to that the fact that Morne made 7 (the third highest number) and the fact that any other made much fewer:
Bismark - 0
De Villiers - 2
Engelbrecht - 3
Louw - 5
Vermeulen - 5
Habana - 1
Kirchner - 1

What does that tell us about workrate and teamwork? At least Morne got into position to attempt tackles, the others weren't even able to get close enough.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Nov 2013, 09:28
#18
11 Nov 2013, 09:28#18

So OOM you want to know about Morne's role in the two tries. Here is the Guardian's take on the second try:

 

"Wales hold on in a hefty tackle. Steyn kicks into the 22.

5.51pm GMT

16 min On that Liam Williams blow to the head, you might remember that du Plessis was sent off against the All Blacks earlier this Autumn for leading into the tackle with his forearm. South Africa win the lineout and win another penalty. Steyn feels Wales are on the back foot and puts it in the corner.

5.51pm GMT

Try! (du Plessis + Steyn con) Wales 6-17 South Africa

Morne Steyn was right. It's a training ground move as Alberts wins the lineout, du Plessis comes around to take the ball at the back of the maul. Peel, roll and score. And Steyn converts."

 

 

 

On the first try you need a little bit of vision...I know it's hard, but do try. Morne Steyn gets the ball 5 metres outside his 22. He has two players outside him and the Welsh have at least 4 lined up....it's no time to run the ball one would think. Except one of the players is Habana and he is marked by a hooker. Steyn sees this, rolls the dice and sets the backline in motion...and is rewarded with a try.

 

He was in fact heavily involved in both tries, through good crisp kicking and bold decision making.....the kind of thing one expects from a Bok flyhalf. And now it's time for your usual soft boiled egg:

 

 

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
11 Nov 2013, 09:41
#19
11 Nov 2013, 09:41#19
 Fact is we need JJ and Willie in the backline to make it an attacking force. hence bok backline for now i:Du Preez, Morne (L ambie) Habana, Jean, JJ, JP and Willie.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Nov 2013, 10:16
#20
11 Nov 2013, 10:16#20

 The_Truth

 

I assume your figures mentioned above relates to the Ellis Park test

 

Your figures tells me NOTHING - the only real figures are the percentage ratio between successful tackles and missed tackles,  

 

The second meaningful implication is what impact a missed tackle or even a poor successful tackle  has on the game - for instance - did it result in

 

   *   position tries;

 

   *   penalties against your team; or

 

   *   placing your team at a serious disadvantage because of loss of territory.  

 

A player can make 10 successful tackles and missed only 2 - but the two misses leads to opposition tries - he is still unsatisfactory insofar as defence is concerned.    The real impact is how did the missed tackles impact on the outcome of the game.

 

Let look at practical examples here with the Ellis Park test in mind:-

 

*   Le Roux misses came as a result of chasing after the ball after so-called strategic kicks are made.   He missed the tackle on the opposition catcher of the ball - but the impact is minor since the next tackler made an effective tackle.   Difficulty of the tackles thus attempted is that the ball catcher does not run at him - but endeavour to run around him.  

 

*   Alberts made 6 tackles - but missed a crucial one on Read - result being a try.  Defence unsatisfactory

 

*  Morne Steyn made 7 tackles and missed 4 tackles.   Three of the misses resulted in tries being scored by the opposition - outcome disastrous insofar as the game result is concerned.  Poor defence clearly in evidence.

 

Morne has a poor record in defence.   His average miss tackle ratio in any  series always hover around 20% (for the recent RC it was 19%) - that is 10% above an acceptable level.   The opposition knows that deficiency and try and run directly  at him often - his technique is weak and the opposition achieve in a very high percentage of the cases the desired result from those efforts.   Even if he successfully tackles a player - the tackles are ineffective as it allows the opposition team player  to off-load the ball or for the  opposition team  to recover the ball and continue with their attack.  Consequently your following  statement is questionable:-

 

"At least Morne got into position to attempt tackles, the others weren't even able to get close enough."

 

 

There is one aspect that you can accuse Morne of if you are an opposition supporter and that is his goal kicking.   For the rest all accusations are nullified by his obvious weaknesses in virtually all other facets of the game.

 

    

 

 

 

CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
11 Nov 2013, 10:35
#21
11 Nov 2013, 10:35#21
 
To be fair ... our entire backline was thrown into disarray when Morne went off.

It was reshuffled and this under a lot of pressure.

Lambie was fine. He could have been better, yes ... however taking into consideration the disruptions, I thought he was adequate.

He's learnt from this and will be better for it the next time round.

You'll see.



 
TT
The_TruthClub Pro471 posts
11 Nov 2013, 10:48
#22
11 Nov 2013, 10:48#22
 "Morne Steyn made 7 tackles and missed 4 tackles.   Three of the misses resulted in tries being scored by the opposition"

Bullshit!
Prove it!
Post video clips!
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Nov 2013, 11:12
#23
11 Nov 2013, 11:12#23

 The_Truth

 

Not bullshit - but very factual.  Look at the Ben Smith try when he ran over Morne.   Look at the Barrett try - where their was a series of unacceptable defensive lapses -  one by Morne - and look at the Read try - where he missed the initial tackle on Read.   Go and check the game and you are likely to find out the truth.

 

I cannot post video clips as my efforts in that regard has always been unsuccessful, but you are at liberty to do that if you don't mind.  

 

CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
11 Nov 2013, 11:21
#24
11 Nov 2013, 11:21#24
 
Truth ... don't let Mike the Simpleton get to you.

He doesn't have the foggiest clue about the sport and it's requirements.

He fabricates and twists the truth in any case to suit himself.

Fact remains that Morne is a proven test match winning flyhalf and has been many many times over.

The way Simpleton Mike's carrying on one would swear we have another Carter in Lambie. That I'm afraid is not the case. He is a good player but by a long shot not a world beater at this stage in time. Swopping one for another is foolishness.

I think what Mike needs is a good old fashioned shag to relieve the pressure on his simple little brain. Maybe that's the problem ... do you think he could be suffering from droop syndrome, hence his grumpy state of mind?

Hmmmmmmmmm ... I wonder??



TT
The_TruthClub Pro471 posts
11 Nov 2013, 12:00
#25
11 Nov 2013, 12:00#25
 Hahaha Mikey... Factual???

With the Smith try, Alberts first misses a tackle. After that Kirchner and Etzebeth misses Smith, then Habana misses Smith and after that Steyn barely gets a hand to him, but misses him...

The Barrett try was analysed many times and the Bullshit you speak have already been proven as just that!

And with the Read try, he was not even in that half of the field!
The players on that side were Etzebeth, Steenkamp, Louw, Strauss and Vermeulen.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Nov 2013, 12:29
#26
11 Nov 2013, 12:29#26

No comment - but Steyn was involved and buggered up - that is enough for me. 

 

Another clueless Morne Steyn groupie - we have enough of those around here - so start thinking properly and not find rubbish excuses for your hero's ridiculously inadequate  performances.  His poor play even cost the Bulls the latest Super 15 semi-final, so the French are welcome to have the robot. 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Nov 2013, 12:29
#27
11 Nov 2013, 12:29#27

 

Sorry - duplication

CW
cwvdmerweRookie50 posts
11 Nov 2013, 13:18
#28
11 Nov 2013, 13:18#28
 Hahaha... En The_Truth het vir Mike Schutte teen die planke met ernstige lyfhoue, met beide die linker-fait en die regter-feit! Goeie werk...

Ou Mike, ek sien as Morne betrokke is, is hy te blameer of hy 'n duikslag drie fases vroeër gemis het en ook as hy enige ander duikslag tussenin sou mis. Maar die heilige koeie kan soveel mis as wat hulle wil en ook nog absoluut geen duikslag maak nie... M.a.w. 'n nul persent effektiwiteit, maar hulle is nog reg. Volgens jou is daar niks fout met hulle verdediging nie.... Hulle is volgens jou die supersterre in die span. Dis is een baie interessante standpunt!

Graag word verneem of jy op jou kop geval het toe jy klein was?
ST
Sun-TzuClub Pro713 posts
11 Nov 2013, 14:35
#29
11 Nov 2013, 14:35#29
 This is the truth in its entirety; Morne was loathed by the drug addict Kohane, and was subsequently driven to pressuring him out of the team with an entire campaign of vitriol. The fans, being of childlike gullibility, went with whatever came their way. Not much unlike newly hatched chicks, mouths agape and down it went. As with all these moments we need another to assume the role of Saviour and in steps our very own Barabas, none other than Patrick Lambie. He was never hailed because of his ability, but rather what he might do. The over-hype continued and now we have grumps like Saffex overly invested in it and too proud to admit they were sold out by a fool even greater than they.

So what have we learned that wasn't evident two years ago? Nothing. Lambie never had BMT, never had courage, never had the skills and - more importantly - never had the brain or the clout. But as we see, gross dishonesty still rears its mangy head about without shame at every corner. Alas, but the myth is fast starting to lose its luster, the crumblings of a dream founded on poor foundation. As grand as it was to behold in the mind, donw it comes in reality. Goodbye Lambie, you were not the first, and assuredly I say, you will not be the last. 
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
11 Nov 2013, 15:04
#30
11 Nov 2013, 15:04#30
"This is the truth in its entirety; Morne was loathed by the drug addict Kohane, and was subsequently driven to pressuring him out of the team with an entire campaign of vitriol. The fans, being of childlike gullibility, went with whatever came their way."

Now this is seriously delusional.

Sun-Tzu, I assume when you say "the drug addict Kohane" you are referring to Mark Keohane? Yes?

If you think Mark Keohane has that much influence or dictates what South African rugby fans believe then you're so far out of touch with reality it's just not funny.

I reckon about 1% of South African rugby supporters even read Keo and only a small percentage of that 1% are stupid enough to take his drivel seriously, so how on earth you can claim that all of us Springbok fans have the "childlike gullibility" to let Keo dictate which players we like is beyond me.

Frankly, there's only one person demonstrating childlike gullibility on this thread and that's you.  
ST
Sun-TzuClub Pro713 posts
11 Nov 2013, 15:12
#31
11 Nov 2013, 15:12#31
 Calm yourself little Habanero. When it has come to exalting the status or lowering it of players, he has had considerable influence! 1% is an extraordinary exaggeration to say the least, quite gullible I would say

But yes, he is not the only one, here are others. But the format works just the same, so your point is lost for all its effort. Hang in there.
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
11 Nov 2013, 15:19
#32
11 Nov 2013, 15:19#32
I'm perfectly calm, little fellow, not quite sure why you would think otherwise . . . unless of course you are so arrogant and so far up your own arse that you think anyone criticising you must be completely out of control.

As for Keo's influence, if anything, I think 1% is extremely generous. In reality Keo probably only influences about 0.1% of rugby supporters . . . and even then only the stupidest 0.1%.
ST
Sun-TzuClub Pro713 posts
11 Nov 2013, 15:21
#33
11 Nov 2013, 15:21#33
1% a generosity for a man who was involved with the selection of the Bok coach in 2007? Sure, extraordinarily generous.
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
11 Nov 2013, 15:34
#34
11 Nov 2013, 15:34#34
Tell me something, smarty-pants, you seem to know a lot about Keo and his website . . . how many readers does he claim to have?
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Nov 2013, 17:45
#35
11 Nov 2013, 17:45#35

8) Keo.co.za
South African journalist Mark Keohane's rugby news blog is the first and last word on the world champion Springboks, but also gives its fair share of coverage to other nations and their domestic games. With the 'Boks gunning for back-to-back World Cups it's worth keeping your eyes on this page

 

 

When the Telegraph came up with a list of the top 10 rugby sites globally, he put Keo at number 8. Keohane has  also been syndicated on SA Rugby, a Financial paper and Sports 24.

 

Only an utter fool, and we have one here in ROOIaas, would assume he reaches only 1% of rugby fans.

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
11 Nov 2013, 18:06
#36
11 Nov 2013, 18:06#36

 Mozart

 

Whomsoever takes Keohane seriously must have their heads read.  I have seen enough of Morne Steyn from the time he nearly beat the Springboks Under 21 team on his own in the JWC World cup In Argentina up to the present time.   He is a robotic pivot with no ball sense and consequently a dismal reader of the game.

 

Over the years he has buggered up in too many key games, because  he is so predictable and easy to read and countered.   Any flyhalf who is predictable and never varies his game by for instance attacking the gain line - is an unacceptable performer and not good enough to play on test level. His deencsive technique is any time as bad of that of Engelbrecht - the difference is that he is even weaker in execution that Engelbrecht is.

 

I do not need Keohane to tell me that - and if I have seen what he reportedly wrote - I would immediately have wavered in my own thinking on the issue and not worth reading.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
11 Nov 2013, 18:11
#37
11 Nov 2013, 18:11#37
 
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news