What is Vermeulen about?

That Coetzee oke from WP looks like a mini-Eben...and not that much mini...'n moet vir die somer!

Good find.

Rooi, you have an unatural tendency to imagine homosexual behavior.  You are projecting too much. Get help, it might solve some anger issues too.

Well atleast you haven't accused me of incest or paedophilia yet, but I'm busy working on not being triggered by such things any more. I still have some way to go learning to deal with such aberrant behavior, but I'll get there in the end. Thanks for the learning opportunity.

Draad poor rooikjackASS appears to have strong homosexual tendencies but we could be wrong maybe he is a trans? These perversions overlap?

Anyhow the peeping perv is a disgusting oak obs essed with cleaning tail pipes!

PS, it was a rather lame response,  but I couldn't quite get into it after the childish "little d!ck" remark...Really? Tell me, are you and CC compensating  for something with your regular references to that part of the male anatomy? Or are the phallic symbols so much engraved into your brainwashed psyche that you don't even notice your obsession with it ?

Dave 

You must understand Mozart.  It goes back for years  now and started when players and members referred to Matfield as physical deficient - he then started claiming that the physical deficiencies of Matfield is not a problem since Alberts did his Matfield's work in the Tight 5, while Matfield did Alberts work outside of scrumming etc.

That brought another aspect into play and that is Pieter=Steph du Toit.   Ever since 2013 when you and I started punting Du Toit as a future prospect Mozart started with a hate campaign  against Du Toit became he could be a threat against Matfield.   When De Jager came to the fore he became part o the hate campaign as  well.

That campaign went from the ridiculous to the nonsensical  in record time.   He claimed that Du Toit had a long neck, thin shoulders and thin wrists and was a physical liability for the Springbok team.   Mozart has a special method he uses - he studied games and ten develop mythical stories.    Fir instance - despite Marx himself stated that the poor throw-ins  was the mistake of  Du Toit, because it did not happen when Mostert is calling line-outs.

There is one persistent approach  by Mozart - Du Toit and De Jager are not acceptable - so he started championing Mostert as the reincarnation of Matfield.   When pointed out that Mostert has a serious problem in organizing and controlling rolling mauls- causing that aspect being eliminated from the Springbok game in the tests last year - he countered by referring to the rolling maul against the French last year which proved that Mostert started and organized the maul.    When analyzed it came out that the only roll Mostert played was to catch the line-out ball.   Thereafter his role became a negative because the maul started going backwards with Mostert with both feet off the ground at that stage could never have organized and controlled the maul in that situation.   Mozart went a but quiet on that and let Silly Billy and the latters partner in idiocy Pakie to take over the Mostert defense.   

So the Mozart situation always remained the same - Mostert is an ideal lock and both De Jager and Du Toit is useless and should not be in the Springbok team,   Now leave that  and consider the present no 8 situation.   Vermeulen does not need to perform at all - his reputation is all hat is needed in the WC,    So now the similar attacks against De Jager and Du Toit remain - but it requires a wider scope.   Go for the Du Preez twins and makes nonsensical claim, such as that they look alike so that spectators adds the achievements of the two brothers and both get credit anytime one of  them does something well - both of them get credit for it..   That sounds reasonable - with a difference the twins have not played together in any match this year at all.  

One must accept  that Mozart has his pet hate players that he attacks constantly and if they are a selection threat he would always find somebody else to support for selection.   Why did they become his pet hate players?   Basically they became a threat insofar as selection of his favourite players are concerned - especially if the players are mentioned by either you are me, 

The fact is it has nothing to do with how players perform at all.                           

   .  

Matfield.

Basically they became a threat insofar as selection of his favourite players are concerned

Ehm, do you actually think anything anybody says on this board can somehow influence player selection?

No - what happened on board has no bearing on actual selections.   That si why the constant attacks on players by site members is so ridiculous - they use all kinds of things - often enough total misrepresentations to support their rants.

What is relevant is to criticize squads after selections were made.   Even then the hate campaigns against players is ridiculous since it happens both before players are selected   and after selection.  

Having hate campaigns against players for four years or more is just plain stupid - not that it stopped it from happening by clowns on site.             

Pakie

I have criticized players and coaches in he past and always motivated the reasons for criticism.   Unlike you and some others I have not try to invent mythical reasons for criticism and ahs never conducted a long term hate campaign on players still active in the game.  

I have no reason whatsoever to look in the mirror because of countering the constant BS you and others spread on site.   The latest example is your nonsensical usage of  defense stats  of De Allende and Esterhuizen - with Estrhuizen making 18 less tackles than De Allende in five tests and touting him as being the better tackler of the two.  Every time your BS was exposed you ran off to another angle and eventually absconded from discussing the matter any further.

Your attacks on for instance  De Allende and Du Toit started in 2014 with supporting the Mozart invented stories and is still ongoing.  My discussions on both Esterhuizen and Mostert are based entirely on proven performances and player deficiencies - not invented ones.      

Pakie

I have criticized players and coaches in he past and always motivated the reasons for criticism.   Unlike you and some others I have not try to invent mythical reasons for criticism and ha s never conducted a long term hate campaign on players still active in the game.  

I have no reason whatsoever to look in the mirror because of countering the constant BS you and others spread on site.   The latest example is your nonsensical usage of  defense stats  of De Allende and Esterhuizen - with Estrhuizen making 18 less tackles than De Allende in five tests and touting him as being the better tackler of the two.  Every time your BS was exposed you ran off to another angle and eventually absconded from discussing the matter any further.

Your attacks on for instance  De Allende and Du Toit started in 2014 with supporting the Mozart invented stories and is still ongoing.  My discussions on both Esterhuizen and Mostert are based entirely on proven performances and player deficiencies - not invented ones.      

Problem is there was no logic in  what you claimed to be logic. You did not admit that in fie test matches against comparable countries De Allende made 18 more tackles than Esterhuizen did,  You never dealt with an accepted norm of missed tackle ratio's used worldwide as a norm pertaining to tackle efficiency.   You clamed that  in five tests Esterhuizen made 35 tackles and  soehow manipulated it to an average which obviously favour  Esterhuizen  fact si what counts is the NUMBER OF TACKLES made in the  five tests where  apples could e compared to apples,

There are two comparative data basis that is acknowledged worldwide, namely -

*    number of successful tackles made; and

*    missed tackle ratio's.

I dealt with Missed Tackle ratio's comprehensively before  - apparently you do not understand it at all.   The second issue is to compare tests in which the circumstance of the two players were on par - hence the using of the five tests they both started:-

De Allende   -   tackles made    53      average    10,6

Esterhuizen   -  tackles made    35      average      7

All the rest of your calculations are cooked and useless.   Just for you to understand -   The difference in tackle efficiency is -

De Allende   -     88,34

Eterhuizne    -     83,34

On the whole 5$ makes a huge difference          

Pakie, you just can't help yourself nè?

Ek weet hoe dit voel.

Nee fok Draad, die oompie tokkel my soos 'n banjo

Pakie

Himmell -  so weather conditions determine the tackling stats.   The idiot is to stupid to realize that at 12 it in fact add to tackle requirements - since the ball regularly does not go much wider, while under good conditions it does go wider.  I have heard BS before - this takes the limit/   

You have been caught distorting things again - lying comes easy to you - it seems to me  Mozart likes tat type of thing and you are l ying more easily by the day.

Your calculation is totally distorted,   In the five comparable tests the breakdown was 10,6 tackles per game or De Allende and 6 for Esterhuizen,  At the same time  Esterhuizen's missed tackle ratio was 5 points higher than De Allende's  - 16,67 compared to 11,67.  

It is time that you stop your BS on site - that would add credibility to you that you are sadly lacking at present.        

See how he does it, Draad? Always throws the accusation in there so you feel compelled to keep defending yourself. Master manipulator.

One has to add, cheap tactics that drag the quality of discussion down and that are certainly better suited to the stinking gutters of politics than to a rugby forum.

Pakie

You tried to bring something into discussion that was immediately proved as being total BS,  It is a fact that poor playing conditions put a heavier tackle requirement in the channel and in the inner backline scenario where the no 12 operates.   

Why try and find a way out of the hole you dug for yourself.  Best thing is to try and avoid writing total tripe in future and do what I do regularly and that is to apologize when I made a mistake and stop wriggling around making the hole deeper and deeper.

That is what I think is the proper thing to do here,     

You really want to carry on with this?

Let's see how many possession the opposition midfield got in the two wet games Esterhuizen played in vs the two dry tests against England that Damian played in:

Total midfield possessions - Esterhuizen's games:

Wales vs SA Washington DC - 12
England vs SA Newlands - 8

Total midfield possessions - Damian's games:

England vs SA JHB - 26
England vs SA Bloem - 25

51 midfield possessions for Damian's opponents vs 20 for Esterhuizen.

If we take possession for opposition 12s only: 37 for Damian's opponent and 11 for Esterhuizen's opponent.

There's your "apples with apples."

Listen how many of the balls went wider and how many were carried to the first line of defense, You started the BS and I pointed out you were wrong,   You can keep on digging - getting deeper in the hole is your own special ability \ to add more eggs to the pile that have been covering you.   and  soon you will be a millionaire by selling eggs.       

Listen how many of the balls went wider and how many were carried to the first line of defense, You started the BS and I pointed out you were wrong,   You can keep on digging - getting deeper in the hole is your own special ability \ to add more eggs to the pile that have been covering you.   and  soon you will be a millionaire by selling eggs.       

Mike, let's grow up. This discussion is making both of us more stupid by the minute. The numbers are academic. We know defensive lines are dynamic. I'd be surprised if 20% of a 12's tackles are on the opposite 12, I've shown that to you before. What those number demonstrate is how little possession got as far as the midfield in the wet games, so why would the 12 channel have gotten more heat, and how do you propose an abrasive player like Esterhuizen got out of making those tackles if people were sent straight into his channel? He missed none against Wales and two of his misses against England were chasing kicks. It makes no sense.

Anyway, this has reached the point of being ridiculous now. Enough.

,.,

OK - I am in full agreement because the goal posts are getting shifted all the time.

So ... we are to wrap our elderly hasbeen up in cotton wool so that he can hopefully shine in 4 matches.

Problem is that he can only manage a match and a half before going awol ... as we saw against the depleted English side.

Winning the MOM against those loser isn't something to be proud of. Why would you even mention it?

We saw how he ducked and dived against the All Blacks. No doubt fearful of spoiling his WC chances by exposing himself as an elderly hasbeen in need of a lie down after 30 minutes.

We should be building for the future ... not regressing with way past their prime players in the hopes that they'll manage 30 minutes without an injury.

The stupidity of some posters on this board is astounding.

Talking about stupidity ... anyone know what Poepol's new alias is?

Waaaaaaaaahahahaha......what a Classic string about the WC final Man of the Match!