Why the Springboks lost the test against England

The first problem is a classic - you do not play locks as loosies.   Du Toit is not a loosie - and should never play in that position.   Alberts is nowhere near the scene and was useless.   The Springboks did not dominate the breakdowns and that is where Alberts were absent.
The above problem accounts for two of the English tries.   The second issue is that the game plan was all stupid - don't kick balls away aimlessly - there were too many players kicking balls away and then having to face counter-attacks.
The fact is that Pietersen was poor and useless and caused the one try when under no pressure he failed to field a high ball.  
What was the positives?   Goosen came on and the backline immediately shaped better up in attack.   That and the fact that the Springboks at last managed to score two tries, only materialized after Goosen came on to replace Lambie.        

Agree about the breakdown but it's everybodies job to protect our ball at the breakdown. How many times did we make a line break with no support? 
I'd add that whoever AC picks in which ever positions, he has to let them form a partnership. 
We seem to switch players every game.

Willem Alberts 14 1 2 Alberts most tackles made /14....most turnovers made /2. Most tackles missed Stephanie 3.....for tries.

Paige is so slow it kills the backline. At least with Faf and Goosen there was some threat.Mike the coach couldn' t even see the potential in Rohan and Ulengo. The guy has no clue whatsoever

 Paige was the kakkest, but the whole lot were P!SS POOR. I'm close to being done with rugby. ATM it looks like a lot more fun to go to the USA and attend TRnMP rallies. Much better entertainment . 

 

 Mozart
You cannot read stats - can you?   Two turnovers were conceded by Alberts - he made no turnovers for the Springboks.   What was he doing insofar as breakdowns are concerned?  NOTHING.   
Our loosies were poor confirming my diagnosis - you cannot play locks as loosies.      

You just cant stop yourself can you Tokkie....accusing others of being wrong when you are wrong yourself ....it was turnovers won TW get it? Discipline Defence # Photo &Name T MT TW 15 (Photo of Willie Le Roux)Willie Le Roux 1 1 - 14 (Photo of Ruan Combrinck)Ruan Combrinck 5 1 - 13 (Photo of Francois Venter)Francois Venter 5 - - 12 (Photo of Damian de Allende)Damian de Allende 7 2 - 11 (Photo of JP Pietersen)JP Pietersen 3 1 - 10 (Photo of Patrick Lambie)Patrick Lambie 9 - - 9 (Photo of Rudy Paige)Rudy Paige 2 - - 1 (Photo of Tendai Mtawarira)Tendai Mtawarira 7 1 1 2 (Photo of Adriaan Strauss)Adriaan Strauss 1 1 - 3 (Photo of Vincent Koch)Vincent Koch 10 - - 4 (Photo of Eben Etzebeth)Eben Etzebeth 2 1 - 5 (Photo of Lodewyk De Jager)Lodewyk De Jager 11 - - 6 (Photo of Willem Alberts)Willem Alberts 16 1 2

 Where did you get that from?  Why don't you stick to ESPN?
Whether you like it or not - Alberts remains one of the worst loosies in world rugby.  No other team would select that slo w coach as a loosie. 

 From the NZ Herald which has the most comprehensive stats.....but if you prefer ESPN, they don't register turnovers won. Still they give Alberts better stats 17 tackles ....1 missed. And the ESPN running stats are decent: W AlbertsF 1 2 11 30 1 1 0 0 He made 30 metres in 11 runs, beating a defender and making a clean break. Best of the Bok forwards in defence and second best on attack statistically. Schplott you plank.

 Alberts  remain too slow to be a loosie and he is never a factor at breakdowns.  He made virtually no ground in ball carries ( 2,6 meters per carry) and does not know how to pass balls.   Useless as per normal.   He is not a loosies ass - or perhaps he is.    

 And so the arsehole tries to defend Alberts' selection on the open side and of course he'll keep supporting his incredible "egg laying pop up" counter ruck theory at the base.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaa!!
Does this fool know anything about rugby? Anything at all?
It's one excuse after another ... one feeble minded theory after another ... and another ... 
How embarrassing it must be to come strutting aboard with his "counter ruck 101" ... "teaching" us ignorant fools on the simple basics ... only to see it crash and burn.
Pfffffffffhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaaaa!!!
I see he's posted a 5 step theory now on why we lost ... no doubt blaming his usual "favourites" ... with hardly a mention of those he supports.
Enough already, Arsehole!!!!

Your every attempt at coming across knowledgeable has exposed you as a dumb ass. An ignorant fool. 
Do me a favour and please stop with these absurdities. This a rugby board ... where rugby matters are occasionally discussed ... and those of us who do talk rugby, would much appreciate it if you'd just faak off. Your "contributions" to this board are laughable and of no value.
Your mere presence drags us down to a level of utter ignorance, so vast is it ... so please ... do the right thing. 
Oh and take the MudBlood and his cricket ignorance with you.
Thanks a lot!!


 

The counter rucking worked. We won 96% of our rucks and 100% of our mauls....to 97% and a 100% for England. We were able to provide good ball and prevent them from getting fast ball. Their tries came from defensive errors....not because they had quick ball. Given we had no fetcher's that were healthy, this part of the theory worked. The part that didnt work is that Stephanie could function defensively as a blind sider. His defence was fatal

 And do you really think Alberts would have been better - his record proves otherwise but you are too prejudiced to realize that .

I see Mallett is running interference for Stephanie again....he couldn't have made those tackles on Youngs. Well having looked at the two tries several times again, there was the potential for an overlap in the first try....so he had a reason to want to shift. And then he was sucked in by an outrgeous bit of play acting by Youngs. Bad, but maybe understandable. But the second time? The Boks were well lined up on each Pom attacking player, all Stephanie had to do was tackle Youngs. And then he gets bamboozled by the same fake? No way!

 Mozart Where were the other loosies and the scrummie?

Clearly not trying to tackle Youngs.....they couldnt have botched it so badly. Have we ever in 15 years of rugby seen Matfield blow two defensive assignments like that? Nope! So far Stephanie looks very feeble against the better packs.