Well Mostert and Snyman sure got what was coming to them...

Too bad José Erasmus is going to park the tractor for the fifth consecutive game though.

However, it's funny how Rassie keeps ignoring Mike's coaching advice. Maybe he can get on the phone to Malherbe's mother to straighten this mess out. 

Erasmus did zero to deal with the ROLLING MAUL problem he referred to himself.   I do think that the team is so-so as a result.  

Erasmus should in fact have changed the locks - but he is not doing that because he is not going to solve that problem this year.

With only four tests remaining until the WC - it is going to remain a problem to be solved.   

The fools cannot help themselves - they have to attack Malherbe and De Allende - when they in their own very special idiotic way would not even answer a simple question about the turnover preceding the Pollard try in the Scottish game.

The other problem was to retain Jantjies on the bench.    In the Scottish game the move of Pollard to 12 was problematic.  There were two cases where there were clear misunderstandings between the two and pollard defense took a deive and he missed tackles in the 12 position.   Not a wise retention at all.  

I was hoping for better and is now of the opinion that the Welsh would win by 9 points.

Lomp is toast

I'd say Lood is more treacle than toast. 

And so is the Springbok Tight 5 with substandard Tight 5 locks.

This is a powerful pack. Mostert knocks more opponents back in contact than Lood. It's as though he is moving underwater, o r a lumbering tree.

Well, I'm no fan of Lood, but Mosterdt did not cover himself with glory tackling players back...or driving with force...mediocre game to his standards . Willemse should be Eben's partner.

Sorry, but I am with Draad on this.

Lood must just pull his finger from his ass and get fit as in match-fit. Looking at him last Saturday, it appears that he lost some kilos, which can do him well. Absolutely nothing wrong with his power as so well illustrated in the scrum and mauls last week.

Mostert's smarts, energy, mobility, hands, speed. Pretty much everything. 

Lood's not the power lock we were promised. The only true power locks since 2012 have been Eben and Flip. Lood can't compare to either one. 

AO

Flippie Flop a power lock - more like a penalty machine with a serious love for cards - that one. 

And the love affair with Mostert relates to a player that in some ways looks like Matfield in line-outs - but without the ability of Matfield  to take opposition throw-in balls in line-outs - and useless in Tight 5 play reducing the Tight 5 to Tight 4, is very much a joke.

When Erasmus speak about problems with and virtual absence of rolling mauls, it becomes clear that some members do not even now what rolling mauls means - a problem on discussion of locks with them - because of their personal attacks on Du Toit and De Jager - being impossible.

So what have we got here - a Tight 4 combination,with one of the Tight 4 being questionable as well - a loss against Wales looks to be on the cards.

Think Papier is a decent test scrummie, nice to know there is a good replacement  for Faf.

I mentioned Papier and Ivan van Zyl before the tests started and Mozart and co went ballistic.   Papier is a decent scrummie on the up.

When Erasmus speak about problems with and virtual absence of rolling mauls

Rassie said, about the Scotland game: "...we also never got the driving maul going". That simply means that he acknowledges that Scotland countered us very well.

The "virtual absence of rolling mauls" is your own embellishment.

it becomes clear that some members do not even now what rolling mauls means

Enlighten us.

AO referred to two driving mauls - which was based on shortened line-outs involving 5 players in the line-out - which is never the basis for forming of actual driving mauls.  That indicates he doe not even know what dr iving mauls entail. 

My reference to driving mauls relates to the constant decisions to take kicks at goals and not making penalty corner kicks.   That has vanished from sight while opposition teams used it often against the Springboks.    

I think that is in line with what Erasmus referred to - that and the fact that rolling mauls was never tried in the Scottish test - but was also extremely rare in all tests played.  

When it was used against England - it was easy for Mozart and AO.   Blame Du Toit for the inaccurate throw-ins by Marx - and that was the end of corner penalty kicks in subsequent tests - but was pronounced in the AB test in Pretoria as well.  

I think the AB test caused action by Erasmus to turn around the deficiency and when it failed in the English test - the return to the previous problem of not taking corner penalty kicks was factual.   The only cases where it did happen was in the last few  minutes of the French test - because a conversion attempt  would still meant a loss to the French.     It was again totally absent against the Scots. 

I do not think my conclusion was different from what Erasmus implied.  

AO referred to two driving mauls - which was based on shortened line-outs involving 5 players in the line-out - which is never the basis for forming of actual driving mauls.  That indicates he doe not even know what dr iving mauls entail. 

My reference to driving mauls relates to the constant decisions to take kicks at goals and not making penalty corner kicks.   That has vanished from sight while opposition teams used it often against the Springboks.    

I think that is in line with what Erasmus referred to - that and the fact that rolling mauls was never tried in the Scottish test - but was also extremely rare in all tests played.  

When it was used against England - it was easy for Mozart and AO.   Blame Du Toit for the inaccurate throw-ins by Marx - and that was the end of corner penalty kicks in subsequent tests - but was pronounced in the AB test in Pretoria as well.  

I think the AB test caused action by Erasmus to turn around the deficiency and when it failed in the English test - the return to the previous problem of not taking corner penalty kicks was factual.   The only cases where it did happen was in the last few  minutes of the French test - because a conversion attempt  would still meant a loss to the French.     It was again totally absent against the Scots. 

I do not think my conclusion was different from what Erasmus implied.  

Lood was on fire earlier this year and if he hadn't injured himself he would now be in the staring 15.

It's just a matter of time. Lood will be fit soon enough to lay his claim on the jersey.

I think that Rassie is happy with Du Toit at 7 so that automatically takes him out of the picture.

However ... the 4 jersey is up for grabs. Eben is no longer assured of his spot in the starting 15. I would not be surprised to see both Bulls locks continue their partnership as the Boks 2nd row ... and I wouldn't have any issues with it. 

That mean that Mostert is assured of at least a bench spot.

We are fortunate to have such quality at lock.

Our problem does not lie at lock.

We need to replace the tired and elderly Duane ... the useless quota outa Kolisi ... and the pathetic Louw with proper rugby players.

Jaco Kriel must be brought in as soon as possible.

CC

Our problem with loosies has been going on for years and is nothing new.   Meyer's loosie selections were in the main pathetic and Coetzee's were bordering on the insane.

Louw at one stage was a good loosie - never a 6 though - and to persist with him now is pathetic since  he rarely does anything useful anymore when he is used to replace Kolisi from the bench.  Neither Kolisi and Louw are acceptable openside flanks. and affectively no loosies at all.  Their work rates and contributions are too low to be acceptable. 

The move of Du Toit to 7 was a desperate effort by Erasmus to get a working player  into the loosie position.  Vermeulen - when tried at 7 - was a total failure in that position - so he is back at 8.  Whether he remains usable at 8 is an open question.

Now back to the locks - Etzebeth's contribution in recent tests were still a bit questionable - his work rate was very low - but he is still a better line-out player than Snyman - and I think that his contribution to the Tight 5 is acceptable.   Mostert is a powder-puff player with virtually no contribution to the Tight 5.   I am still waiting for proof that he took any opposition throw-ins in line-outs in any of the tests he played in.    He is active outside of Tight 5 play - but does that off-set is lack of physicality as a lock?   I do not think so.

Fact is I would rather see  hard-working Tight 5 players like Du Toit,  De Jager and  Schickerling in the mix than Mostert.

But because of the loosie deficiencies I would think that Du Toit will stay at 7 - but I think Erasmus should look again -

*     at the openside situation specifically and the loosies in general; and 

*    should consider Kriel, the  Du Preez twins and Marcell Coetzee as well, especially if the wheels - already off in the case of Louw - come off in the case of  Vermeulen as well.

Fact is I would rather see  hard-working Tight 5 players like Du Toit,  De Jager and  Schickerling in the mix than Mostert.

I take it Mostert isn't a hard working player then.

Never makes a tackle, never gets involved and completely vanishes all too often.

Nonsense, Mike

You are not being unfair on Mostert.

Mostert was part of a dominant scrum for the Lions all season long ... so where you're coming up with this nonsense is beyond me. He never let us down once in any of the set pieces.

To add to that ... he was the best 5 lock in SR for the last two seasons ... stealing more opposition ball than anyone else and has the work rate that most loosies would be proud of.

I think the issue you have with Mostert has a lot more to do with Mozart and his bum chum than Mostert himself ... just as Mozarts issue with Du Toit has everything to do with your liking of the man.

I wish you two twats would grow up.

Plum

Sorry about your misunderstanding  - I said Mostert is active in play outside of the Tight 5 - where his contribution is not what it should be.   The active means ball carries and tackles.  The Tight 5 play deals with ball protection and recovery and better contribution in line-outs and scrumming.   In the case of line-outs the absence of line-out takes on opposition throw-ins is a serious concern and there is also serious concern as to his deficient role in rolling mauls.  Even  in that famous rolling maul against the French - he caught the ball and then went missing in action.   There is also no indication that his contribution to scrumming is all that strong.       Physicality deficiency seems to be his problem.

CC

I never had a problem with Mostert on Super Rugby level - but is he able to take the step up to Test Level?   I do have problems because there are serious indications that he is not the same performer on test level than he is on SR level.  

Mozart BS as per normal.  The throw-ins by Marx was the problem not the weak line-outs you claimed to be in the English test.

This RPI story is as absent in concept than you are.   Where is your previous insistence that Super Rugby performance is not an indication  of what players can produce on test level?    Not that actual performance was ever used when it comes to support of players insofar as selection is concerned.      

Your attitude about Du Toit borders on hatred manifested itself from 2013 and is continuing.   Fact is your attitude against Du Toit is really stupid sinc e it is never based on PERFORMANCE - but on personal prejudice.     

Lood will never be a test quality lock. He has been outplayed in every competitive test. What has he got to date? A few tackle busts against Scotland in 2014, in a game where the Boks hammered them all over the field. Two tackle busts against Japan. That's it. Nothing more in 38 tests. Where has he been in any big game?

Mostert has done more in every one of his tests. He has stood out in the biggest of games, such as that win in New Zealand when the Boks had their backs against the wall. It never ceases to amaze me how our most productive players are attacked, and the most mediocre are lauded. 

It never ceases to amaze me how our most productive players are attacked, and the most mediocre are lauded. 

You and me both man.

No I look at all aspects of performance and you lot only at prejudice against players.   Fact is that De Jager was the top lock of the Springboks in 2015 when AO claimed it was Matfield.   

You always attack Du Toit and praise the useless Louw - Kirchner was a better full back than Folau, Morne was a star flyhalf despite the fact that Meyer gave up on him,   One can name virtually every player you praise and one would find serious deficiencies you ignore.   So you invent fairy tales and then tell us how wonderfully  strong tackles are and ignore defense deficiencies.

Every posting you make are generalizations and what I call "fairy tales" - because it consists virtually totally on dreamt up BS.  You have proven that you do not even know what the term "driving mauls" entails.

So keep it up - you really are in credibly funny.               

And you missed the De Allende turnover that led to Pollard's try.  I did not miss the Mostert role in the driving maul - I described it accurately and indicated what actually happened.  I also find that Willemse story as delirium - would Le Roux with his style of play not be in the same position as Willemse if the sequence of play is taken into account.   Pollard missed  a penalty line kick with disastrous consequences - yet not a word from you on that one.

No Mozart - the stories you publish are based on pet hate without regard to reality.    It is always easy to describe things in such a way that you can blame certain players for tings happening if they happen to be within 5 meters from attacking players and one ahs to wonder about your honesty.   

I do not need rose-tinted glasses and at least try and stay honest in assessments.  You don't.       

This is sort of like when Lambie scored that penalty against New Zealand. The fan club gave a great cry, as though they were finally vindicated, only to be reminded that we were told he was more than just a kicking flyhalf. In this instance, Damian won a turnover. We all said he has a history of being very good at the breakdown, though it hasn't been as prominent this season. Nothing changes. Where was the rest of his game? Nowhere. Poor defence, poor attack. 1 pass and 6 runs of nothing.

I commend your enthusiasm, but your effort is best concentrated on something more useful. 

Ok Braindead - why always said that and then never commented on it positively. The always by you never mentioned him when in the 2015 WC he made the third highest number of turnovers.  Neither you nor Mozart credited hi for that.   So where does the "always" come from?

A player must be assessed on all contributions made in matches - not those that he is credited with only and definitely not imagined defects also.   

The day you said anything positive about De Allende and some other players like Du Toit - is the day the sky will fall in.   You are therefore utterly useless as a rugby analyst - and your contibutions are basically worthless.       

"Steph: I saw no errors of any description. His rushes out the line were accurate and increased in intensity as the game progressed. Strong as a carrier. One of our primary carriers, if not our primary carrier."

https://www.ruckersforum.com/forum/augenöffner/auge-ratings-eng-vs-rsa-eoyt-2018-/27983

Always wrong. 

Bo dimness - at least I know what a rolling maul is.  And you ratings are not in line with your attacks on players in most cases.   You may give Du Toit a 7 in ratings and then start writing about his deficiencies,

What is curious is that the change normally occur when Mozart start attacking players.   Then your song changes to be in line with his often enough BS.

By the way Snyman was replace because he fucked up royally and  Mostert was so poor - he proved again he cannot initiate and co-ordinae driving mauls from line-outs and even lost one on own throw - why is he in the team at all?

Mozart as per normal you are right about one thing - your support of poor players can in the main not be faulted poor theya re and poor thy will always be.