Worlds best lock - Etzebeth boost for Boks ahead of France Test

Yes the great man could be back for French test! 

Cape Town - The Springboks have received some good news with lock Eben Etzebeth's foot injury not as bad as initially feared.

READ: Erasmus calls in the cavalry ahead of France

The 27-year-old was substituted just after half-time in Saturday's 12-11 loss to England at Twickenham, and coach Rassie Erasmus had initially suggested that Etzebeth could miss the rest of the tour with what looked an ankle injury. 

But there was good news on Monday, with Erasmus confirming that the towering lock forward was doing well. 

According to Erasmus, there is a good chance that Etzebeth will be considered for Saturday’s Test against France.

"The injury is not as bad as we initially thought and we will give Eben time until Tuesday to prove his fitness," said Erasmus. 

If Etzebeth is ruled out, then RG Snyman would be the favourite too start in the No 4 jersey.

I hope so, I heard he was out for 6 weeks.

Hope so too.

Shark, from early on in the match, I got the impression that Eben focussed on Itoje. Blocking, disrupting and frustrating him...it worked too. As soon as Eben went off, Itoje started building momentum and he had a few strong runs/breaks.

You seem to think the momentum shifted at the end of the first half...not so IMHO....it shifted when Eben stopped an Etoje drive, but injured himself in the processes...Eben's influence on the match can clearly be gathered by how the momentum shifted in England's favour after Eben went off. To me it's kinda weird how everyone except Mike is ignoring that...Bizarre. 

Eben is immense. A workhorse. Steph looks more prominent because he is the playmaker in the pods more often than our other forwards and defends around the fringes. Eben more dynamic and considerably stronger. He is also a leader. Having gone over his game, I cannot see any justification for the criticism he has received. However, when I noted several issues with Steph, it became clear. He is a threat to the status of Steph. The unwillingness to critique Steph is the giveaway. Find me instances of Eben making the kinds of mistakes I have found in Steph throughout the season. Until then, the discussion isn't worth anyone's time. 

WTF???

Erm, no, not even close.

This discussion is about Etzebeth - but Mozart took another opportunity to attack Du Toit.   That is typical though - the man is dishonest when it comes to player performance  assessments.

There is a hug e difference in what Etzebeth and Du Toit brings to games and Mozart is too ignorant to understand what they bring to the game.  

I would summarize that Etzebeth is strong in Tight 5 play and for example the issue dealt with by Draad as to containing of Itoje.   Outside from that his role in tests is rather low - hence his low statistical record when it comes to ball carries and tackle count.

Du Toit never neglected his Tight 5 performance - but he normally has a much higher record of performance outside the strict confines of the Tight 5 as reflected in the stats.

In Mozart's  case he praises Etzebeth and attacks Du Toit endlessly.   What a joke the fool makes of himself constantly.      

Attacking Du Toit? The problem is you have a crush on the kid. You burst into tears whenever anyone offers an objective critique of his game. He can do no wrong. If anyone says otherwise, they are "attacking" him. Steph has been far from flawless. He isn't even irreplaceable. Lying about his errors is what you have done. The only one I see genuinely attacking players is you. The only one I see with a genuine zeal in seeing anyone fail is you. 

AO

It is fools like you and Mozart who have crushes on players. 

I do not like baseless attacks on players and when Mozart attacks players it is 90% baseless and  entirely supported by bias.   Your case is slightly different - in your case 90% of the criticism is cloud 9 BS,  

I criticize players where criticism is due - nobody is regarded as holy cows.   In the case of Mozart and you it is based on pet hates and normally  based on totally irrational and false grounds.   It is when you two write BS on the site it is my duty to protect players under constant attack by you two - especially of the attacks are based on misrepresentation, outright lies and unproven generalizations.

AO

It is fools like you and Mozart who have crushes on players. 

I do not like baseless attacks on players and when Mozart attacks players it is 90% baseless and  entirely supported by bias.   Your case is slightly different - in your case 90% of the criticism is cloud 9 BS,  

I criticize players where criticism is due - nobody is regarded as holy cows.   In the case of Mozart and you it is based on pet hates and normally  based on totally irrational and false grounds.   It is when you two write BS on the site it is my duty to protect players under constant attack by you two - especially of the attacks are based on misrepresentation, outright lies and unproven generalizations.

90% BS. Yet 100% verifiable by video evidence. See the difference? You said Steph never missed tackles around the ruck. You said it was all lies, a campaign against him. You have been proven wrong each and every time. If only you'd follow the game, as I do. You wouldn't have a problem. When you don't have an agenda, and merely say it as it is, life becomes easier.

I have no pet hates. I'm not that emotionally invested in the game that I feel any kind of attachment to these players. I merely call a spade a spade. That tends to ruffle the feathers of those that are. The clueless journos raise up idols and you are one of those who fall hook, line and sinker each and every time.

If I were to take your "unbiased" analysis at face value I'd believe:

1. Schalk played flyhalf.
2. Steph is the "best Bok of all time". 
3. Faf never misses kicks. 
4. Esterhuizen missed all his tackles in the win he lost in Brisbane, SA. 
5. Damian never has defensive issues. 
6. Damian runs over every one each game. 
7. Rassie's game isn't founded on kicking. 
8. Willemse didn't throw an intercept in the game he did but didn't play. 
9. All of those tries we conceded didn't happen, because aimless kicking never happens under Rassie. 

Listen dimness you should learn to know and understand what I wrote and stop outright lies:-

1   In the WC in 2015 Pollard and Lambie s flyhalfs got less than one-fifth of the balls passed by the scrummies.   Burger got more than double the figure the two flyhalfs got - so I said rightly so that Burger was the "stand-in" flyhalf.

2   Outright lie - I never said that  about Du Toit

3.   What the hell does that statement about Faf mean?  

4    I was wrong about him playing against the Aussies and apologized afterwards.  I never said or wrote anything about Esterhuizen ever missing ALL his tackles an any match.      Esterhuizen in two tests against England made 6 tackles and missed 5 - for a missed tackle ratio of 44,5 % - is that good enough?

5    Outright lie - I wrote repeatedly about games where De Allende's defense was poor - and said that in recent games issue was not a problem.

6    Lie - never wrote that ever,

7    Yes I said that Rassie envisage a game of variation - not constant kicking.   There is no way that donkey kicking so noticeable in the Meyer game plan is  applied by Erasmus.   There is still too many aimless box kicking by the scrummies.   However, the key is that kicking has taken a virtual total difference from what it was in the past when aimless kicking was the norm.   But then neither you or Mozart understand what an aimless kick means.

8    One intercept try is career-defining?   I did not look at the match where the try happened and admitted as much afterwards.

9    What is this about?  I never said that aimless kicks under Erasmus did not happen - what I did say aimless kicking became a minor portion when measured against aimless  kicking under Meyer and Coetzee.   

So keep going on and on and do not lie as you did above in most cases.    

When did I not admit when a player who played well did so?   I look at the total picture of contributions made  by a player - both in attack and defense - before I write about a player's performance.   When a player made breaks beating defenders I mention those - but if the same player made minimal tackles and missed tackles I comments on that as well.   A balanced approach is what is required at all times.

There is one thing I never do - I never create fictional stories about what happens in games.   We have enough "experts" - Mozart, you and Pakie - who lies about what happens in games when it comes to some players.   That has been exposed a number of times on site.

When I make a mistake I admit that I was wrong,   When you get caught out you start writing skyscrapers  to get out of the mess you created for yourself.   

"It is easy to make a stereotype out of the big muscular young man from Epping who is being talked into being an ‘enforcer’ on the rugby field. But if you tried, you would  be sure to get your stereotype wrong.

Beresford talked about his school career. He was throughout his school career in the top academic classes, well above average, and matriculated with a B aggregate, which would have got him into almost all university faculties, had he so chosen. Beresford said: “Eben was highly intelligent.”

Eben was not a prefect at school, always well mannered and respectful – ‘a very nice chap with a great sense of humour.’ His biggest misdemeanour was eating in class which he did as much as possible – understandable for a rapidly growing lad who was physically active in a demanding way."

LiNK

Mozart

I never said that Player,  Matfield and Habana were not great sportsmen.   What I did say is that Matfield spoiled his image  by returning from retirement in 2014 and then became anything but a great player.   I never said anything about Habana either - but it be came apparent in 2016 and 2017  that he was not up to standard anymore.   

It is not a weakness - it is realizing in practice what is happening at present.

Nobody said anything about De Kock.   Fact is in ODI's he was and still is a vast improvement on Graeme Smith.   It does not make him a great  yet - but he might become one.

The problem is that you refuse to look at the present performance scenario and that you always support reputation selections, which can only be detrimental     

Ah, the "roid" allegation....true to form for Groennek.

You keep setting yourself up Mike. Why did Steph have 16 possessions against England? At first receiver. He had one more possession than Damian, more than any backline player, Willemse and Pollard aside - who received most of those possessions from Steph! 

He ran as many times as Pollard. You tell me the game is over my head, yet you can't see that Steph and Schalk play the same role. The only difference being Schalk was a vastly superior playmaker. If you weren't biased, you wouldn't walk into this mess in the first place. You still haven't twigged that Rassie's Boks are a kicking team. As you say, 2004 Bulle ball. 

Draad, rooitwitterbug is not likely to suggest this about a nz player?

AO

I would not respond to idiocy and total lack of understanding of the game of rugby in future.

Etzebeth has not been the "worlds best lock" this year. He was good initially when he came back from injury, but he has faded since then. I still rate him, but that is the truth

That's about where I am as well as far as Eb en goes.

There are roles that are assigned to these players. Eben is dynamic enough to play any of these roles. Rassie has used him as the muscle. The engine of the pack. Fans miss too many details because they aren't pointed out by the journos or commentators and they can't see it themselves. I'd advise reviewing the game more closely. We are much better with Eben than without. In all honesty, he should be the Bok captain. 

Consistently the best Bok for a few years now...and the behind the scenes captain too.