Who contributed to the Stormers loss agains the Crusaders?

After looking at the game a number of times the biiggest contributor by far was Earl Silky Hands Jantjies,   The charged down kick shortly thereafter led to Todd's try under the post - 7 points to the Crusaders.   Next point contribution came from Jantjies knocking on the ball - then hanging on to the ball.   Result - a conerted penalty was the result.   The Crusaders in the whole match scored 19 points - 10 of which was gifted to them by Jantjies.  They should put up a statue of him in Christchurch for a major contribution to Crusader Rugby. 

 Mike, he is a disappointment to me as well. I was quite certain the Stormers were making a mistake to get him and let Cat go, but a loss, like a win is usually a team effort. No use to blame only one player. He can't be dropped as there is no one else. Swiel is obviously not ready yet.

 But ou maaike the Stormers are a crap team and deserve to be 12 or lower on the log so dont land all the blame on Jantes!

I actually also lamented the departure of Cat. Another blunder by Coetzee. Hopefully Grant will be back soon. I see van aswegen is on the bench. He was looking promising before being injured.

 Tyler Bleyendaal

Craig Joubert....the pass to Matt Todd was forward and the yellow to Vermeulen was excessive.

DomMike exposed for lying again. The first try was not down to Jantjies being charged down, it was down to Duvenhage pathetic miss of a straightforward tackle.

Jantjies drop of a poor pass way over his head, had nothing to do with points scored, much like his second drop - you are just lying

Saffex

Typical comments from a daft person.   That chargedown kick put the Stromers on the back foot from which they could not recover.   You really are not reading games properly.   And the knock-on of Jantjies caused him to hung onto the ball - converted penalty.  Jantjies dropping a pass - not because it was poor, but out of cowardice.

The great blamer of anybody but his pedestal players at it again.   Look at issues in logical sequence - maybe you will learn something about the game of rugby.

No DomMike, you are just blatantly lying. The try had everything to do with Duvenhage missing a straightfoward tackle - FACT

The pass to Jantjies was piss poor, it was way over his head - FACT

Keep lying though........problem is I'll keep exposing you.

Saffex

Your donkey brain is relly at work here.   No let me explain the logic.   Jantjies made the chargedown kick - did he not.   If he cleared the ball to midway between the half line and 22 - the sequence of play would have been cvastly different.  The kick was the real cause - the missed tackle was merely a consequence of the Stormers all being on the back foot becauseof the kick.   Try and get some logic here.

Even if the ball was passed way over his head - utter bullshit this one (if it was why not let it go to the next player) as it was about neck high and easily catchable by a player not afraid of being tackled -  why recover the ball and hang onto it resulting in that converted penalty.  The hanging onto the ball was rank stupidity but also optional.   Fact it was not necessary at all given the circumstances.

Saffex says - Jantjies did nothing wrong on Saturday - all the other players are to blame - Joke of the week that one and the explanations by you even funnier.

to be fair the stormers were up against supporters (the closest that some of those supporters have ever been to NZ is wellington in the paarl), poor coaching (AC has been in charge the longest than any other coach yet the players are still making school boy errors), poor tactics and poor game pattern (coach again sorry) and there new signings have been limited in there play and as the net result are being caught out in other areas of there game.

DomMike you really are stupid aren't you? If Jantjies had been charged down on his line and the Saders had scored then fair enough, we would blame Jantjies for that one. This never happened, Jantjies was charged down nowhere near his line, the Saders gathered the ball with plenty of work to do. Duvenhage missed a straightforward tackle that led to the try, you ignorant twit

Saffex

You apparently do not look at rugby and the consequnces of plays made by payers - only direct results.  Your comments about i really daft.   Jantjies kicked is charged down - the Crusaders get possession of the ball and start an attack, culminating in a try.   No charge down kick - no attack - no try.  I know it is difficult  for you to to understand - so ask your son about it - he may be able to explain it to you.      

Everyone looks at direct results you idiot. Duvenhage missed a simple tackle and thanks to that the Saders scored the try......but you are so pathetically prejudiced that you fail to blame Duvenhage for the try, laying blame on Jantjies alone - its childish and smacks of prejudice......which is exactly what you are when it comes to certain players

We see straight through you DomMike and we continue to expose your rugby ignorance

Saffex

Did you ask your son about it - before you wrote the latest ignorant crap?   He may have been able to explain the situation to you in objective terms.  Why blame Duvenhage for the missed tackle and not use your first defence "it happens" in his case?

Come now Safex - I really expect more insight from you on rugby issues.   

My son carries no prejudices against players. He would have seen it for what it was - a charge down far from the line and a poor miss tackle leading to a try.

My son along with the rest of the world would blame Duvenhage for that try.

Saffex

Open your eyes please - that charge down kick was within the 22 mete area of the Stormers - not far from the line at all. 

DomMike, time to expose you for the liar you are. First of all Jantjies gets charged down way outside his 22, the ball is gathered by Fourie, who sets up a ruck, Duvenhage takes the ball and grubbers is way down the field without finding touch, Marshall gathers the ball and counters, running straight through Duvenhage.

But given the pathetic and childish prejudice that you hold against Jantjies, you decide to blame Jantjies for that try, when in fact Duvenhage had two hands in that try. One was failing to find touch, the second was missing a straightforward tackle......all this happening after the Jantjies charge down.

And you expect us to believe anything you say when it comes to rugby. Mike, you are just a liar

Saffex

A whole saga of inventions here - the problem started with the chargedown and Jantjies was within his 22 when the ball was charged down - not way outside his 22 as alleged by you - he was diddling around - much like your other hero Hougaard before kicking and the chargedown was the result.

Hell - everyone knows Jantjies was a rank disaster in that game as he was in the Soweto test and the game against the Bulls  - yet you defend him like a Trojan.  At least that one shows an admirable sense of misplaced loyalty.    

Mike, I took you for a honourable and honest man - but its clear that you are just a bare faced liar - sad to see really

Saffex

When I say I believe the player had a bad game - it is my opinion on the issue - and is not a lie at all.   Let me explain something to you clearly:-

*    My initial assessment of performances is based on my impressions gained during the game as I watched it initially.

*    I will review the assessment by looking at the game again - and may change my mind about the intitial impression - such as happened in the Bosman case last week.   I would then more specifically look at players pointed out by other posters and also look at those players that I thought under-performed or was rated as good.

*    After having watched the game a second time - I woiuld lookat the stats for the game - to confirm my opinion  or actually point to a different assessment.

In dealing with assessments I look ot only at specific instances - but rather at the sequence of events flowing from such instances.    For instance take the charges down kick of Jantjies - to my opinion the kick put the Stormers on the back foot in a serious of plays that let to the try scored by the Crusaders.   They were never off the back fooot and was trying to cover by defence - but being on the back foot means they were at a serious disadvantage all along up to the scoring of the try.

Be it as it may - if I or other posters interpret an occurence or a statement by franchise officials differently from what you believe is the case - it does not make anybody a liar at all.

I would really like to ask you as a friend not to use the word liar so liberally when people differ from you in the interpretation of games.   It really is not nice.

Wrong Mike, you lied about the facts of that try......Jantjies was not to blame, Duvenhage was - the only reason you fingered Jantjies is because you hate the guy.

Your weekly take on the player is pathetic and this latest lie was a step too far - Jantjies does not deserve the shit you write about him. Lying about him is just not on

Saffex

The questions remain -

*   Was the kick charged down - yes or  no"

*    Did the charge doiwn resulted in the Stormers being oin tha back foot; - yes or no

*    Did in the sequence of plays that followed the charge down, the Stormers ever really recover from the effects of the chargedown - yes or no.

You cannot really argue about the above - so you go back to your standard defence about liars.

I have never been unobjectove about Jantjies.  Inthe game against the brumbies I said that he was good in some respects - although here were also specific deficiencies present in his game.

Against the Crusaders he had a very poor game - even you initially admitted as much.  Jantjies has thus far this year -

*    had two very poor games - th one against the Bulls and the other against the Crusaders;

*    he had an average game against the the Sharks - was not really faulted about anything - but also not contributing anything much during the performance.

*   he was good against the Bumbies in atacking  - but also problematic in some elements like defence in the pocket.     On the whole I was objective and I mentioned both the good deficient elements of  his performance.

I was worried about his defence deficiencies and whether he would retain his elements of good play against the Brumbies.   In all fairness he was not up to standard at all - and you in fact said that he was poor.   So why all the defences now?

However, this thread relates to the Sharks selecton for this week - not to Jantjies - whome I happen to quote as an example.   What do you really think about the comments I made on center play of Steyn and the deficiencies in doing what oher centers are capable of doing - eg line breaks.

Here goes LiarMike in response to your points:

Saffex

The questions remain -

* Was the kick charged down - yes or no" - YES

* Did the charge doiwn resulted in the Stormers being oin tha back foot; - yes or no - NO, as the ball was gathered by Fourie who set up a ruck

* Did in the sequence of plays that followed the charge down, the Stormers ever really recover from the effects of the chargedown - yes or no. - NO, because from the ruck, Duvenhage took the ball grubbered it down field, never found touch, ball was collected by Marshall who counter attacked from deep inside his half and ran straight through Duvenhage to set up the try.

You cannot really argue about the above - so you go back to your standard defence about liars - YOU ARE LYING

As for Frand and your pathetic take on his attacking abilities as per usual its the biggest load of shit I have read in ages much like your take on the Saders try, which you blamed Jantjies for - its all just bullshit.

You know nothing about rugby and you lie to try make a point