What our flops against the BaaBaas, Poms and Italians clearly show....

....is whatever the wise heads thought caused our loss against NZ, mostly Morne Steyn, was not the cause. Today we followed Mallett's prescription of ball in hand religiously. We made 117 carroes, 153 passes and 8 off;oads....to Italy's 76 carries, 93 psses and 4 offloads.....and lost. We kicked the ball 19 times to Italy's 26 times......and lost. In all likelyhood the only chance to beat Wales is to bring back Morne who gave us our only win over top 5 opposition this year. But of course that will never happen our "wise" men figured out we lost to NZ because of Morne. We may not be the worst rugby nation on the planet, but we are certainly the dumbest.

Morne offers some form of a territorial kicking game, but Goosen also offers a kicking game. Goosen varies his running lines better than Morne to create space for his backs
Our rolling maul has been dropped from Springbok rugby- so we will convert less territory into points from lineouts- under the current game plan, But they are screwed which ever approach that Coetzee is involved in.

 Mozart ... for crying out loud!!!
You and your stats don't tell the whole story. According to your stats, player A carried the ball so many times and made so much yardage ... but what does it say about what he did with it at the end of his carry? Did he drop it? Did he knock it on in contact? Was he stripped in a tackle? Did he pass it only to see it intercepted? Did he put someone into space with a superb pass? Did anything at all come of it or was it just a whole lot of aimless running about? 
These stats of yours tell us nothing of the actual match. 
How about watching the match yourself. You'll probably be surprised to see that their were snippets of good play from those you despise which could have resulted in something special had it been supported by another. 
Guys like Lambie and Venter had good positive moments but you wouldn't know that pouring over you cold, hard, fact-less stats.
Each to his own I guess
You stick to your deceiving stats and base your argument round them and I'll watch the match and see what actually happened.

 Mozart only uses stats when he thinks it proves something, but  his interpretation is so twisted it is unbelievable.   In any event I wonder where he got the stats from since ESN is not listing the said match stats.    

 Well, Mike ... we've seen over the last while that his thumb is usually a good source for stats.
Thing is though ... which thumb did he draw it from this time round.  Left or right?

Told you before Tokkie the stats come from the best source, the NZ Herald. And these are match stats, not player stats....the player stats actually look fairly decent for the game, because the Italians scarcely ran at us. They kicked behind us, defended like Trojans, and executed the rolling maul. Yep they beat us with our own game. If that doesn't cause you to question the incessant phase play nothing will.

 Suddenly the NZ Herald is the best source and not ESPN - one can only wonder what will come up next.   However, leave that be.
The problem was not with incessant play as you call it - the question is who was the ball past to far too often to forwards who never held the ball even when it was clear that the ball should go to the backline.    Passing the ball to dunces like Alberts happened far too often.   There was very little in what you call incessant play.
There was one real issue - the issue of predictability.   The predictability makes the Italian defense looking good.   The fact is that Jones last year in the Japan test worked  his whole strategy on the predictability issue and the same was yesterday applicable in the case of Dr Venter.
What was clear was that the predictability issue was worse yesterday and that was bad news.    

 Suddenly the NZ Herald is the best source and not ESPN - one can only wonder what will come up next.   However, leave that be.
The problem was not with incessant play as you call it - the question is who was the ball past to far too often to forwards who never held the ball even when it was clear that the ball should go to the backline.    Passing the ball to dunces like Alberts happened far too often.   There was very little in what you call incessant play.
There was one real issue - the issue of predictability.   The predictability makes the Italian defense looking good.   The fact is that Jones last year in the Japan test worked  his whole strategy on the predictability issue and the same was yesterday applicable in the case of Dr Venter.
What was clear was that the predictability issue was worse yesterday and that was bad news.    

 Incessant PHASE play moron. The lack of creativity came from Lambie, Allende and the bog ordinary Venter who carried the ball 31 times vs 21 for Alberts/ Carr and Whiteley.. Actually our 10/12/13 axis carried the ball 31 times vs 32 for the NZ 10/12/13 axis. Our backs had every chance to create opportunities and failed miserably.

 " Suddenly the NZ Herald is the best source and not ESPN - one can only wonder what will come up next.   However, leave that be."
Both ESPNScrum and the NZ Herald get their stats from the same source. NZ Herald only publish a wider selection of stats than ESPN.
Go to this page and scroll down to the end of "Player Comparison". Look towards the right side of the page.

 Mozart
How can a team be creative when the ball is constantly passed to the forwards when the team is supposed to attack.   Predictability is a sin in rugby and make defense so much easier.  
Most f the backline passing was way out of the red zone - all the red azone passing went to forwards.
When will  you stop showing total ignorance when it comes to rugby?    

 Mozart
How can a team be creative when the ball is constantly passed to the forwards when the team is supposed to attack.   Predictability is a sin in rugby and make defense so much easier.  
Most f the backline passing was way out of the red zone - all the red azone passing went to forwards.
When will  you stop showing total ignorance when it comes to rugby?    

'All the redzone passing went to forwards'.....no not all, the one Combrink missed for example. Every team uses forwards in the red zone Tokkie. The difference is when NZ switch to the backs, they have some bite and creativity. Dont look for that from Lambie, Allende and Venter.

 You mean the one Combrinck missed because of the atrocious pass of Habana.   Your assessment is as per normal so twisted a discussion is impossible.    

 Habana is old and tired. He's a liability to the side. One can tell this by his poor distribution skills. I mean how difficult is it to simply pass the ball into the bread basket of your fellow team mate? 
It seem our boys are now expected to do acrobatics when tired and elderly fools can no longer cut the mustard.
And to think this fool wants to bring more geriatrics in.
LOL!!!!!!!  

A difficult offload Habana offered as he was being tackled.....but still catchable. No more difficult than the catch Habana pulled off for our first try. Add that to the try Combrink gifted the Poms last week and it's a poor prognosis, along with passes into touch, inept kicks. A retreaded fullback. This chap is never going to be a superior international wing. To mention his name in the same breath as Habana is a laugh.

 That' s an excuse for some poor play by the elderly hasbeen.
If he thought that there was a chance he couldn't make a successful pass to his team mate then he should rather have held onto possession and recycled the ball. It's standard procedure. Simple basics of rugby. 
It's those 50/50 calls that contribute to the team losing test matches.
He should have known better.
As I said ... just another elderly player costing the team.