Does that look like someone who spends no time in the gym?
He is never going to be bulky but pretty defined
Does that look like someone who spends no time in the gym?
He is never going to be bulky but pretty defined
Who said he spends no time in the gym?
Moz
Perhaps he should have spent more time perfecting his goal post kicking and drop kicks I think as opposed to working out in the Gym.
Do you still have this poster above your bed?
No the poster above my bed is of my mother
Damn…..you said it was of me 
No Becs the naked one of you is under my pillow
Fair enough.
Tiny little arms and legs….hahaha….that’s you best shot?
Whahaha that is a runner's physique, Dave.
No wonder he gets walked over.
Are you actually serious with that picture?
Manie should bulk up to where Jessie Kriel is to have any shot at being a decent defender. Like I said, another 10Kgs.
Bulking up… like the Bok players are Hibernating Bears ha ha! The only way Libbok will Bulk up is by taking steroids :)
I agree with AJH he should be kicking more and more…at game time he should be kicking, especially pressure kicks.
By giving him a kicker to take his kicks for him, is giving him a crutch to lean on!
Rassie is making him a special needs case. We don’t need handicapped players in the Squad. He is a Flyhalf and Flyhalfs need to kick, so let the man Kick!
That was probably a once off to boost his confidence...Manie kicks well enough to get the pressure kick monkey off his back if he works at it.
M
Bulking is a pretty standard term for increasing your calorie intake and lifting more weights.
Manie could easily put on 10 Kgs of muscle if he tried.
Yeah I know Plum:) just making a joke on this beautiful Sunny Friday here in WP Country. Which is by the way the best part of SA :)
WP does win.
I'd chuck the Transkei's name in the hat too, were it not for the locals there.
Jy loop op dun ys!!!
I played ice hockey in my youth, Draad.
Ys is my game.
No you dumb fucks that photo shows that Manie works out countering your usual bullshit
I never said he was bulky but he is well built for a scrawny lad
Shows how ignorant some of you are - some people can’t bulk up
Prime example is Ruan Nortje the new Bok lock - he is on record saying he is struggling to put on bulk so has to make sure he makes an impact in other ways
Geez there are some real stupid people on this board
One thing is for certain, Manie spends time in the gym as that photo clearly shows
Exposing the lies
It is a Manie look a like on Saffex Grinder account. Not sure why he is so obsessed with men physique. What about Frans Malherbe or don't you like bears?
King when you first joined I got the impression you were smart but as time goes by it’s clear you are fucking stupid
Ou corny king has a lose screw.
Oaks recall the Great Naas Botha. Manie is more physical than Naas. He can defend his channel reasonably well.
Nowhere, apart from loons on this board, have I come accross people talking of Manie's weak defence. So far he has coped. Soft muscle built up in a gym may look impressive but doesn't quite deliver as advertised.
There's only one question, Dave...
Is King an ignorant prick or a dumb fok?
Dave
I at last got the Bulls Team for tomottow ad the intteresing selection is Chaimbelain at 10. I am ging to watch his performanc with interest to see wether he is Springbok material,
Actually that’s a soccer player’s physique…we see that look all the time when the winning team players rip of their jerseys. It’s a great look for lots of running and 90 minute stamina. For somebody who has to stop bullocking international loosies, it’s never going to work.
Libbok has now stepped into the Elton Jantjies role. Somebody who has to be protected. It’s never going to work….move on.
"Oaks recall the Great Naas Botha"
Haha yeah, but put any international side these days against the best side when Naas played...the Naas' era side would get monstered, and likely killed.
Not even nearly the same thing.
Who said Manie was big or bulky?
You said he never went to the gym, this photo proves you were lying
Libbok is a relatively small guy - he is 1.82 tall and weighs 76 kg/
Looking at other flyhalfs of note in SA their stats are as follows:-\
Shaca - he is 1,85 = weight 94 kg
Wolhuter - he is 1,82 = weight 84 kg
Chamberlain - he is 1,81 = weight 86 kg
It is the weight issue that bothers me For such a small guy to tackle loosies somewhere around 30 kgs heavier than him is not going to be effective,
The fact is lets look at Dan Carter as an ideal flyhalf
height = 1,78 ks
weight = 92 kgs
Stop being stupid Dave, all these players go to the gym. I’m simply parodying your moronic comments on Mostert.
The Manie/Gym comment was clearly related to his size, Dave. IE he doesn't lift enough and isn't strong enough.
Who the hell cares if he goes to the gym and does Pilates for 6 hours?
This thread that you made is either stupid or dishonest. Take your pick.
Also, this might be the most ridiculous comment ever...
"Shows how ignorant some of you are - some people can’t bulk up"
Can't bulk up!!!???
Anybody can bulk up. Eat and lift weights. It's literally that simple.
Or are you actually gonna tell us that a 20 something male, in his prime, eating 12 eggs, 1kg of steak and 2x protein shakes a day, won't bulk up when he goes to the gym and lifts as heavy as he can for 6 months.
And in the very same post you talk about other people being ignorant.
You're actually deluded.
And Dave asks for video confirmation. Has he ever gone into a game and provided video confirmation of anything. He is rather good at avoiding video confirmation though.
Plum you are seriously stupid - so in your world anyone can bulk up can they - fuck me are you seriously this stupid?
So if anyone can bulk up then why has Mostert never bulked up huh?
Why is Ruan Nortje now aged 26 on record saying he can’t put on weight huh?
Moz I have on numerous occasions gone through a game naming the exact moment an incident happens that requires an explanation mostly in response to your bullshit takes on things so stop speaking shit
Your take on Libbok’s defence is a load of shit - simply provide me with time stamps of his defensive failings in his last outing against the Argies
A simple request - either you man up and prove me wrong or slink off with the usual embarrassment tag attached to you
No point in bothering, you will just deny it’s true, then get abusive. There is no way the stats would only target Libbok every time. Get out of the dark ages man, you sound as bad as Saaiman, who I no longer even bother to address.
Dave "Provide timestamps"
Anybody "Here are the timestamps"
Dave "Bullshit, cos I say so"
Anybody -Facepalm-
I've never met a single person that can't go to the gym, eat more and get bigger. Not one.
Ever!
Just as I thought Moz all talk no substance
Plum talk me through how Mostert and Nortje bulk up then wise fuck?
You obviously have the answer
Dave, you sound more like a helpless snapping puppy with every high pitched growl.
Answer the fucking question wise one instead of all the aimless hot air
Deflection lacks integrity
Nortje needs your help bulking up as the Bulls and Boks have failed to help him
The floor is yours
Just as I thought Dave, . Watch the first half highlights:
Minute 18 Libbok blows a simple conversion
Minute 22 Jalibert runs right through Libbok, leads directly to a penalty and a French try.
Minute 35 Boks take a scrum off a mark, get a penalty….Libbok as he did against the Bargies ….misses touch. Etzebeth concedes a penalty from the subsequent French possession and is yellow carded. So we start the second half 3 points down vs potentially 3 points up.
….
In all that’s a 13 point negative contribution….not even counting the 2.5 point value of the yellow card. So stop with the bombastic bullshit and look honestly at the games for a change. Libbok was yanked because he was losing the game for us.
Two other things you might look at:
Minute 10.0 Mostert busts through a French tackle
Minute 18.00 Dud Allende sells a dummy after the French blow the high ball…sets off for the line with nobody in front of him and is hauled down from behind by Jelonch the French blindside….a carthorse.
& these oumas think you don't know shit from sugar
Those are classic ouma,s :) Sous is yster….en wie de Fok gee om wat Frikkadel dink :)
..
..
Ja nee Ouma/Gogo Power :)
Moz we are talking tackles missed and the best you can come up with is one miss which I have not even looked at as I don’t ever trust your version of events
So one tackle missed - am I missing something here
Oh wow we have two fucking ignorant clowns in blob and Zeropower trying to make a rugby point
Fucking clueless clowns should get a tent together
And Dave wonders why he's called "little man".
I’m still waiting for your bulking up remedy you ignorant prick as is Nortje
I saw Nortje's comment regarding not being able to put on more weight. Frankly the man okays very well just as he is. Many say he has been a great find.
As for stats nobody does the battle stats better than Rassie team. IF Manie's defence is so bad and IF it couldn't be adequately covered Manie would not be in tbe Bok squad.
It would be nice if some loons here thought through issues before babbling away. Bwahahahahaha.
Naas could tackle but was instructed to leave it too the loosies. The genius of this player would have shine through even today. I read that Craven rated him the greatest rugby player ever.
The facts are a great coach has looked at everything concerning Manie in great detail. His conclusion is that Manie is still with his place in the squad.
Case closed Mamparas.
I’d like to see Nortje put on 5kg of muscle, he is another powder puff but far more skilful
At least Nortje is trying to gain weight but admits he is struggling
But he has nothing to worry about as Buttplug has a remedy for him
Too late for powder puff unfortunately
Oh no Dave not one tackle…several tackles….mostly made or missed in unison. I ignored the joint tackles and gave you the one on one tackle that Libbok missed in a try scoring sequence for France.
He attempted 3 solo tackles…one on Jalibert at minute 20, where his opposite number ran right through him. And twice Dante did what any coach would have suggested ….run directly at Libbok. In both cases …minutes 29.40 and 39.00 he broke through Libbok and was tackled by Dud as he emerged from the failed tackles.
What I never saw was one proper individual tackle that Libbok made on an opponent. My count is 0 and 3. They did hide him well though, he seemed to be playing at fullback for much of the time.
So we could ask others to do his tackling and others to do his kicking, so he can launch cross kick after cross kick. Is there anything special about those kicks though? I doubt it, any school boy 10 could do that.
He ran! He ran! Our little man. A mouth for days. But a heart the fades. Such is the tale, of little Dave
He ran! He ran! Our little man. With words so crude. A walking mood. When faced with doubt, he’d scream and shout. Logic ignored. His pride restored.
He ran! He ran! Our little man. With fallacies galore. To fight with ease. No truth to seek. His mind too weak. And so, he’d rave. That's our little Dave :(
Well I can tell you one good thing about Manie - many of our centers can learn a thing or two from him about taking the ball to the line and timing a pass.
His the best passer I've seen in a long time...even better than DMac...look how ordinary the Stormers look without him...and Sasha...I still believe, flaws 'n all, he brings something unique to the table and Moz can slate him all he likes, but in the Frencj QF, we wouldn't have been close enough for Pollard to close it out in the death without Manie.
‘We wouldn’t have been close enough for pollard’….typical balls.
Incredible....
For 10 years I say nothing, then I make my first joke towards Dave that I think his obsession with rugby bodies is a bit gay and I get the double whammy name calling.
But seriously, are you into body building or something? You don't have to admire the okes without their shirts on. You can tell if a guy is build like a brick shit house.
We all know Manie is wirery guy.
but in the Frencj QF, we wouldn't have been close enough for Pollard to close it out in the death without Manie.
It's called giving credit where credit is due.
Go ahead Draad….defend your point. I actually liked Manie initially, saw him as our Larkham. But in the tight, big tests he is invisible.
What did he do in the French test I didn’t get?
Moz you keep banging on about the French test - but provide no time stamps for all these missed tackles bar one
Hardly a strong argument now is it?
And let’s face it one test does not define a player
I suggested the last test he played as a reference but you have ignored that
Reality is there is no issue with Libbok’s defence, for if there was it would be apparent and he would no longer be involved in the side
He is a class act - is an asset on attack who is an unreliable goal kicker and that’s it
Just stating claims which are contradicted by facts Dave….it doesn’t work.
Facts are in video evidence - or time stamps of that evidence
You have provided one time stamp of a missed tackle which I have not even bothered looking at as there is no credibility in furnishing me with one incident
So you think I’m lying?
I’m saying provide the evidence as I know Manie does not have an issue with his defence as a whole - for if he did we would know about it and he would not be playing test rugby under Rassie
I’m talking about his overall test career not the odd game
Watch his last test against the Argies and provide the time stamps of his missed tackles
It’s that simple
So when I say he missed three tackles and made none against France you think I’m lying? Yes or no, it’s that simple.
I’m not interested in one fucking game
You are probably lying as you speak so much shit when it comes to players performances
I’ve asked for time stamps - I’m still waiting
One time stamp is not worth my time
Okay here you go:
20.47 Jalibert straight through Libbok
29.43 Dante through Libbok
39.00 Dante through Libbok
There were other situations that were joint tackles…some probably classified as missed, some as made…but they were joint efforts.
Knock yourself out. Also watch Jalibert beating 9 tackles. Where was Libbok. Hidden at fullback, because the coaches know he can’t tackle the big boys.
At fullback - wow last I checked it was the role of a 10 to sweep at the back, you see Sacha and Pollard doing that all the time
Is Rassie hiding them to
So against France he misses 3 tackles wow and that defines his defence as a test player? Seriously?
What about his last test against the Argies and every other test in between
If Manie had a defensive issue it would firstly be well documented and we would all know about it and secondly he would no longer be playing test rugby - it’s that simple
Manie does not have a defensive issue - he does a job defending his channel - sure it’s never going to be dominant as he is a little guy, but it’s good enough to keep him in the test equation
Why would Rassie select him if he was a defensive liability?
In aggregate he attempted 32 tackles and missed 12. A 62% completion rate. And even that’s flattering , a quarter of his tackles came against Tonga from the bench, when they were well beaten.
He is a small bloke, just like Jantjies and is always going to struggle to protect his channel. At the WC he clearly didn’t.
No he does not
Inaccurate stats are not worth considering
The same stats that had us believe Mostert never missed a tackle in the 2019 WC final or that Thomas never won us any scrum penalties against Portugal
Those stats are a joke
If Manie had a defensive issue he would not be playing test rugby and that’s a fact
Oh those wonderful stats again
Just watch the fucking game Moz - I did and Manie was fine defensively as he always is
So in the Irish WC test Sexton tackles 11 made/1 missed…..Libbok tackles at 4 made and 3 missed. And it’s the stats that are wrong.
Sexton| J SextonFH | 0 | 11 | 1 | 0 |
Farrell
| O FarrellFH | 1 | 6 | 0 |
Jalibert
| M JalibertFH | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Russell
| F RussellFH | 1 | 10 | 1 | 0 |
No im not stupid enough to rely on stats
It’s that simple
Sure Dave keep a tight hold on your head that has just been handed to you.
Handed to me by who? You relying on stats? Give me a break
It’s this simple Moz - if Manie had a defensive issue it would be well documented just like his kicking woes have been
But here is the crux - if it was a problem, would Rassie be selecting him?
So Moz, answer this - why is Rassie still selecting Manie if he can’t tackle?????
Say what they want about Manie the fact remains as Draad pointed out, he kept our run alive in the WC until Pollard returned. An admirable contribution.
Noticeably his size and weight was exactly the same then as it is now.
Fact.
Why is he selecting Koch, Reinach, Mapimpi, Moerat, Wiese?
Actually he didn’t…he lost the Irish test and was well on the way to losing the French test when he got yanked.
I don’t say what I want about Danie Denny, I provide facts and examples. If you do the same perhaps we could have a constructive discussion about him…not just cling on to our favorite players ignoring their obvious flaws.
He selects Koch, Reinach and Mapimpi as they are good players and provide him with experience
He sees potential in Moerat as I do
Not sure why Wiese is on your list
None on your list have glaring flaws like not being able to tackle as you imply about Manie
I don’t get your point?
I don't regard doting on only his weaknesses as being wholly constructive and unlike some on here I don't hang onto a favourite player by my fingernails. And there's one other thing I don't do and that is to pile on layer after layer after layer of the same critique on one particular player. For example I had no regard for Elton Jantjies and I thought that I'd made it clear only you didn't know. As for another example the same can be said of my opinion on Trump colluding with the Russians.
So ja, I'm sticking with Draad's opinion that Manie kept our WC chances alive in Pollard's absence.
Here's the question that destroys, Dave.
Observe the mental gymnastics and avoidance that is to follow.
Here it is...
The most reliable stats on a game read that a 10 attempted 30 tackles, completed zero, and missed 30.
What do you take from that, Dave?
Dave's chest beating silly tit answer - I take nothing from it because stats mean nothing.
In Dave's mind - Well it obviously means that the 10 had a shocking game.
Dave's conundrum - He knows that stats are far from meaningless. But, because stats don't help his current cause, he has to proclaim that they are meaningless.
The result - Dave will resort to intellectual dishonesty in order to rescue a nonsensical argument that he has made.
The irony - Rassie's most valuable and prised contribution to rugby coaching is...wait for it...wait for it...BATTLE STATS!
So the guy that Dave claims is a genius and that greatest Bok coach ever, lives and breathes statistics. His entire gameplan and team selection is based around statistics.
History rhyming - Dave paints himself into ridiculous corners, and as usual, has no means of intellectually escaping, and so he resorts to the usual way the men with minds of 14 year-olds to escape his embarrassment.
We all see it, Dave.
A bit more on Rassie and his battle stats, below.
"Rassie and the coaches brought in a thing to measure your battle rate [stats]. It is every involvement that you have in the game; it gets calculated and added up together with the time that you played to get your battle stats," Smith explained in a Betway exclusive snippet from the Chasing the Sun 2 documentary series.
Former Springbok coach Nick Mallett revealed last year that Erasmus and his staff briefed the Supersport pundit and commentary team on the metric and revealed that Smith was consistently the best performer in the statistic even when adding players from other nations.
In the clip, Erasmus adds: "It's a guy's effectiveness in his position and how long it takes him to be effective again; it is how many seconds it takes for you [the player] to do something positive or successful and what your job is. The longer it takes for you to do it again, obviously the worse it is [the battle stat]."
I’ll keep it simple Buttplug - Rassie relies on stats compiled by his team of experts you dumbass - reliable stats - not the pile of shit ESPN come up with
What did Squidge say about Rassie and stats huh?
He is not into the trivial stats that mean nothing without context - clean breaks made etc etc
It’s those defining battle stats that require no context - just raw real data
Buttplug try again - you are such easy pickings
ESPN my arse
Gotcha Denny, he didn’t miss 38% of his tackles and crucial kicks that could have won the Irish test.
Sure he did and I see that, I'm not blind sighted, I stand accused of failing to critique his down side just as you never mention his up side.
"It’s those defining battle stats that require no context - just raw real data"
So defining "positive contribution" requires no context?
Great, provide us with an example of a positive contribution without context.
This should be good...
So Dave, you an educated man, believe ESPN a large global company with a brand name to protect, put out such woefully wrong stats. Opposing flyhalves making 28 of 30 tackles and Manie only making 20 of 32, is flat out wrong.
And in every case wrong in only one direction, which could only imply, they an American company, for some reason had a unique bias against Libbok.
Do you see how bat crazy that is….a conspiracy theory with no possible motive.
Even if the stats are occasionally wrong they are always very close to the match stats provided in the commentaries. If they were egregiously wrong players and coaches would have pointed it out years ago.
But why would they target Libbok, a player of color from South Africa…it makes no sense.
Moz how can I rely on ESPN when they tell me Mostert never missed a tackle in the 19 WC final or that Thomas never won a scrum penalty?
Both very obvious happenings in a game
So for me I don’t give a toss how big the company is, if they can’t be accurate there is no credibility in the stats they provide
So no, for me the only credible argument is the visual one. The games are there to be viewed - I know Manie does not have an issue with his defence, the very reason it’s not documented and the very reason he is still a Bok
ESPN is shit
No Buttplug no context required telling me how quickly Kwagga gets back to his feet and hits the next ruck
Let's just use Dave's own basic logic agianst him .... because it's so easy to do.
"Reality is there is no issue with Libbok’s defence, for if there was it would be apparent and he would no longer be involved in the side"
So, then by using your very own reasoning here.... why is Mostert still in the side, if he is never big or physical enough to compete.
"If Manie had a defensive issue it would firstly be well documented and we would all know about it and secondly he would no longer be playing test rugby - it’s that simple"
Well, according to you, it is well documented that Mostert is not physical enough or big enough to be in the side, and he should not even be a Springbok.... so why was he and still is....
"Why would Rassie select him if he was a defensive liability?"
Why would Rassie continue to pick Mostert if he does not add value to the team .......
"If Manie had a defensive issue he would not be playing test rugby and that’s a fact"
If Mostert was not physical enough for the position he plays, he would not be playing for the Sprinngboks either.....
"So Moz, answer this - why is Rassie still selecting Manie if he can’t tackle?????"
Why is Rassie still selecting Mostert if you believe he brings absolutely no value at all to any game that he plays in.
You see what I did there Davey.... just using your own failed logic against you.
DumbAss did I not say that I don’t rate Mostert but Rassie clearly does - you profoundly stupid prick?
Did I not say Rassie was great but not perfect - his biggest failing in my opion is his selection of powder puff
Rassie is obviously ok with Mostert making loads of tackles and adding no value physically. He is obviously happy that the rest of the forwards add enough physicality to offset the useless Mostert
Adding value by making loads of tackles but not being physical is something a coach could live with - missing loads of tackles is not something a coach can live with - get it?
Hope that helps you fuckwit but I guess not as you are too stupid
Yes another foot shot from simple Dave.
Remember when he told us that Ruck efficiency means nothing?
Now he is claiming it means everything.
First he says this...
"He is not into the trivial stats that mean nothing without context - clean breaks made etc etc
It’s those defining battle stats that require no context - just raw real data" - Note the word "defining" that simple Dave uses here. Telling us that these stats mean something, and because they mean something...this is why Rassie uses them. But Ruck efficiency also means nothing...umm. Are you confused yet? Because then simple Dave makes the statement below...
"No Buttplug no context required telling me how quickly Kwagga gets back to his feet and hits the next ruck" - Here Dave is referring to what he thinks are valuable stats...which he previously told us were meaningless.
To summarise...
Mostert has incredibly high ruck efficiency. Rassie loves this and picks Mostert. Dave doesn't like ESPNs stats, so he claims they are garbage, and that Rassie's team looks at valuable stats...like ruck efficiency, which apparently require no context and are also not important at the same time as being important.
Look, Dave is completely confused about what Rassie's battle stats actually are. But that's not the point here.
The point is that Dave is simply not very bright and ties himself up in all sorts of knots...and gets all indignant about his own silliness.
Keep trucking, Dave. I find this all very amusing.
Buttplug I’m guessing you are as fucking stupid as DumbAss - did I say that I was into battle stats or did I say Rassie was huh?
Wake the fuck up you desperate prick
Because Rassie is big on battle stats does not mean I am? Get it
You thick shit
"DumbAss did I not say that I don’t rate Mostert but Rassie clearly does - you profoundly stupid prick?"
Lol, this is exactly what I wanted from you Davey
"Did I not say Rassie was great but not perfect"
This is precisely what I wanted you to respond with Davey boy..... and you did....
Oh Dave.... you profoundly stupid twat
This is exactly my point you incredibly dumb idiot.....
So by your very own admission, many times on this forum..... Rassie is not perfect....and sometimes gets things wrong ...
So, Rassie is also possibly not perfect when picking Libbok.....or does this perfection from Rassie only extend to when he is only picking one single player..... Mostert....
I personally don't have a very big issue with Libbok, but showing you the error of your ways is a bit of fun.
No fucking ways did you pass the bar exam..... just no ways dude ..... not with this extremely low level of intelligence.
Listen here DumbAss if you knew a bit about rugby you might just sneak in the chance of making some valid points
But your problem is that you are so rugby ignorant that any of your attempts fall flat making you look even more stupid than you really are
Here goes - lack of physicality is excusable when you are proficient in other areas. But before you get all hard over that call - that is not my call. I would never select a lock that lacks physicality - for the record
Now a player that can’t tackle at test level is inexcusable - end of
So for a start do you know the difference between excusable and inexcusable huh??
So Rassie is not perfect but he is not fucking stupid like you are - he will never select a player that can’t tackle - queue Fassi being sent away to work on his defence, it’s why Nohamba has never cracked the test nod yet
Rassie will however select the odd player that is not able to impose himself physically - Mostert, Kwagga, Kolbe, Willie and Arendse
Is this sinking in dumbfuck - I won’t hold my breath
You are such easy pickings
Next
Old Davey looking pretty silly right about now.
Easy pickings indeed.
So Dave, do stats mean something or don't they?
"So for a start do you know the difference between excusable and inexcusable huh??"
Excusable would be how you think you look to others...... but inexcusable would be whoever decided to let you legally represent any actual living creature.
"So Rassie is not perfect but he is not fucking stupid like you are"
Exactly the stupid, dimwitted and unintelligent response that I predicted and fully expected....
This was exactly why I walked you into this very specific scenario Davey boy.....
So Rassie is not perfect ...... but he is not perfect only when he does not make your specific selections......
What a completely ignorant, stupid and arrogant twat you really are .....
1) So Rassie is a genius coach. And battle stats are his be all and end all when it comes to selections and game plan. But Dave is clevererer because he knows something that Rassie doesn't...stats are worthless - Rassie is wrong.
2) Ruck efficiency, is apparently in superposition because it is worthless while at the same being "defining" and meaning full - Stats are wrong.
3) Context is apparently not important when discerning what a "positive contribution" is. This deeply philosophical contribution from Davey has shreds of altruism and cosmic awareness present that are truly astounding - Common logic is wrong.
4) Manie is wonderful even though he has some of the worst defence of any Bok 10 in recent memory. Either that or ESPN are involved in some conspiracy against Manie...oh and "Now a player that can’t tackle at test level is inexcusable - end of" - ESPN is wrong.
5) Kwagga doesn't impose himself physically, because apparently it takes zero physicality to pilfer ball. Kwagga of course being one of the biggest ball pilferers at the WC. Yes, you heard it here...getting down, and holding off defenders while stealing the ball is not a show of Kwagga physically imposing himself - Our lying eyes are wrong.
He just keeps dropping these gems.
Got any more, Davey?
There is no way opposing flyhalves go 28 made/2 missed and Libbok goes 20 made/12 missed without there being a significant issue.
There is no issue with Maine’s defence Moz for if there was we would have heard about it long ago and Rassie would not select him
Those ESPN stats tell us very little for not only are they often inaccurate they provide zero context
Buttplug and DumbAss I’m doing a Denny on you - I can’t be bloody asked responding to such stupidity
You both bore the crap out of me
Libbok in the Glasgow match we lost to take us out at the QF stage.
| M LibbokFH | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
lol that old chestnut.
But really, Davey, no more gems for us?
You were on such a roll ;)
ESPN are globalist scum!
So there in his last 3 URC matches this year he made 10 tackles and missed 8. He is a defensive sieve.
"I’m doing a Denny on you"
You can't be, you didn't run away
Moz what part of ESPN being a bit of a joke are you missing?
If Manie is so shit defensively why are Rassie and Dobson still selecting him
Please answer this question?
Because you think you saw Mostert miss one of his 20 odd tackles in the WC final isn’t as persuasive as Manie’s tackle stats being awful match after match. The only explanation for that isn’t random error, it’s systematic bias. So I ask you a question in turn, do you think ESPN is biased against Libbok in particular.
Mozart
You obviously miss the fact that Erasmus is trying desperately to find another reliable flyhalf to add to Pollard and Sacha - becaue he already menioned that he will try and reduce the work oadd of Pollard and wants him in coaching set-up. I agree with you that Libbok is not the answer and mentioned Wolhuter of the Lions and Chambelain of he Bulls are better options than Libbok,
Dave had no answers, and as usual, when he's out of road...everybody else is misunderstanding the facts, or the facts are wrong.
...so he has been reduced to an appeal to authority, again.
The exact same case he ends up making for DDA.
"If he's so bad then why do people think he's good?" or "If he's so bad then why does Rassie select him?"
And once you get past that, all he's left with is "You bore me."
At no point does he provide a shred of evidence, or even a reliable insight into why he holds the position that he does.
Hilarious stuff from the biggest chest beater on Ruckers.
No Moz not in particular just a piss poor version of stats in general - I only know about the Mostert and Thomas errors as I actually sought them out.
No doubt given these errors there have to be far more than those two I have identified especially considering how obvious those two ESPN misses were
Now answer my question, why would Rassie and Dobson keep selecting Manie if he is such a poor defender?
I trust you are better placed to provide me with an answer than Buttplug who is too stupid to comprehend the fact that a coach selecting a player carries some weight and is pretty conclusive evidence that the coach rates the player
These coaches don’t select players that can’t tackle so I’m interested to know what you think their reason is for selecting a player that you say is a defensive liability - for clearly the coaches don’t share your view
The pros outweigh the cons...simple...back to back URC finals and an away knockout loss to the eventual champions on the 3rd season...all with Manie ar 10...can't wait for him to start for us at 10 again...Sasha still have to emulate that at the Stormers...waiting in anticipation...
Hey Dave...why does Rassie select Mostert?
Bwhahaha!
These coaches don't select powder puffs, right?
More knots, more tying yourself up in them.
..
..
No Dave, that dog won’t hunt. A system which makes random errors doesn’t make it in every case for one player. Maybe Libbok made one or two more or less tackles in those matches, if you define success differently….give him the benefit of the doubt and his tackling stats are still piss poor.
Answer the question Moz why are Rassie and Dobson selecting him if he is a defensive liability according to ESPN
Answer the question, Dave.
Why does Rassie keep selecting Mostert?
I’ve told you numerous times you dumbfuck
Oh...because there was nobody else available?
Of all the locks, In all the land, Lood's injury, Forced Rassie's hand
PS...there were many other locks available.
Well firstly Dave, he isn’t selecting him….he was third choice behind Pollard and Sacha in the RC. Whereas he was first choice going into the RWC. Clearly his star has faded.
So given that, why is he still selected. Firstly because he is familiar with the system, you make that point in another string. Secondly because he is a talented attacking player, which supports the narrative Rasmus is pushing that we have become a more attacking team,
But even though he supports the narrative Rasmus never had enough faith in him to use him as the kicker against the Bargies….or even to have him on the bench in the matches that really counted against NZ or Ireland.
And I’m 100% certain the coaches know Manie’s defensive frailty, which is why you see him in the fullback position and Willemse defending up in the line against the Bargies.
A 60% tackling rate will never survive in test rugby.
No Moz Manie was only first choice because Pollard was injured. The only reason Manie has fallen down the pecking order is because of his goal kicking it has zero to do with defence
You saw him at fullback sweeping as all 10’s have to do - you see Pollard and Sacha doing the same
Willemse never replaced Manie in the 10 channel as a planned switch simply never happened
When did I say that Plum?
But here goes as I’m bored with this.
Rassie rates Mostert, it’s clearly not his physicality that he rates but he rates that energy, that heart, that durability, that fight, all those tackles
Rassie values that over the better and more physical options out there other than Lood. It’s Rassie’s failing especially considering he could have started RG in the WC and against Ireland
The mind boggles that he selected powder puff of RG - it’s beyond my comprehension
Biggest disappointment to me ever is not seeing the Eben/RG combo especially when the opportunity presented itself
As I’ve often said Lood is good but RG is far better - good old Mostert does not feature at all for me
So in a nutshell Rassie rates Mostert and I don’t at all
Pollard played the week before the WC. If Rasmus really wanted Pollard he could have selected him….hell he selected 4 scrumhalves.
Nope he was all set to play Libbok, stuck with him all the way though the first half against the Poms, when losing became a real possibilty. He finally had to recognize the lucky side of the Marx injury, which gave him Pollard.
A farce, but he got lucky, after which we will only see Libbok in the matches we can afford to create an image.
Oh what absolute bullshit
Pollard had played off the bench the week before he was called up
You don’t select players that have not played a game of rugby and proved their match fitness
Implying Rassie would not select a ready Pollard is insulting - it’s on par with not selecting Eben
Your take as per usual is utter nonsense
Libbok has never been ahead of Pollard in the pecking order
It’s just a debate Dave. I know you haven’t won a debate today and you are a bit overmatched, but losing your cool is a tell. Insulting everybody when you yourself are the loser is rather pathetic. Of course Rasmus could and should have taken Pollard who Squidge, your hero, calls the best knockout player in the world.
Btw what reason did Dassie give for selecting 4 nines ?
On the whole I thick what Erasmus implied earlier this year about Pollard. At the time he said -
* that throgh careful management he will try and keep Pollard in the Springbok squad until 2026; and
* that Polard wil end up in the coaching decvelpment progam.
The problem is that Pollard since 2016 to date had been injured a nuber of imes and recovery period were long.
I think hat Erasmus is hinking of Shaca Feinberg Mngomzulu as the number 1 flyhalf of he Springboks in future and he is ooking or one or 2 backups. We will probably see what Erasmus has in mind on the Pollard issue. He may be in the 2027 WC Squad - partly as a back-up player if needed as was the cse with Frans Steyn was in 2019.
We will see what Ersmus will start doing the squad to be named son. Since Shaca will be unavailable for the series. Libbk maye in the squad - but the question is who else will be in he squad when i comes to the flyhalf position.
.
.
Rassie selects Mostert = a travesty.
Rassie selects Manie = definitive proof that Manie has a right to be there.
Are you starting to see why the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, Dave?
Same applies to your view on stats. Here you again use a logical fallacy, known as fallacy of composition. Where you assert that because you found one error with ESPN stats, that all ESPN stats are wrong.
This is akin to a student providing an incorrect answer to an exam, and on that basis you predict he will get zero answers correct. Sounds like a crazy way to think, huh? Exactly.
"At no point does he provide a shred of evidence, or even a reliable insight into why he holds the position that he does"
Which is precisely why I enjoy and much prefer someone like Pakie's posts compared to Dave, there is just no comparison, because Pakie backs it up with stats, video evidence and other analysis.
Dave is a walking logical fallacy machine that punctuates his arguments with ad hominem.
A one-trick pony.
"A one-trick pony"
You are too polite Plum
President of Zero
In way I distrust somewhat basic elements of stats - since hey do not taake into account for isntance the quality of actions and the consequences resulting from such actions. A scientific compubased project that deals with every individual player in temas were developed - b alhough he pojec was bough by most of the higher professional player evaluations -
* some coaches like Meyer and Coetzee refused to use it with ghastly consequences being the result of player and team development; while
* it is used extensively by Erasmus,
That program is objctive and not influenced by fo instance Erasmus and e resultant diffeences is clear, So you get cases like Morne who was a one-horse cart speilist based on goal kicking - but no a real backline pivot, Experts woldwide have a different vie of he value of playes than people without accss to the program often abse their suppor on pejudic rather on acual performance .
That is where the problem lies - people like Pakie bases eir preferences on photos and raw stats but miss the plot in many ways Mostert is an example.as a good lock in especially line-ous and making tackles - but is really a fringe player since the 2019 RWC especially isnce he only strte in tests .when ohe mre solid locks are out of the game due to injury, The argument is wheher he is replacable or not, especially with all he younger and more physical playes coming through the system and that Mostert will likely be phased out of the future squad selecion by Erasmus as he is elaly replacable.
In the csse of Libbok th fact is that he is tricky a timres in matches - with deiciencies like goalkicking and defense deficiency he .would not be the real deal at flyhalf which I beleive that critics of Libbok beleiv she ha erious deficiencies, Playing in he Jantjies style iis not working out in going into the 2027 RWC ad Ersmus will obiously y and find alternatove backps for Shaca.
Unfortnately basic stats is often abused by predjudiced indivduals to promote certain players - for instance Esterhuizen. He has a very mixed performance value as a player - he i phsically srong - but pace-deficient wih dubious ball skills as well as defense I would rather prefer younger players at center than Esterhuizen, .
\\
Moz you keep dreaming that you have won the debate - what is pathetic is your inability to grasp reality or deal with the facts
Fact is Pollard had not played a single game when Rassie had to announce the WC squad
The first game he played was off the bench the weekend before he was called up
A fit and tested Pollard would have walked Rassie’s WC squad as his starting 10
If you don’t get the above you are stupid
...says the ice lolly salesman to the math PHD.
He Dave, remember when I mentioned that you might just be deluded?
So Buttplug what part of my take on the Pollard selection is incorrect you fucking pathetic attention seeking prick?
Come on - counter my take for there is one certainty and that is Moz is completely delusional if he thinks Rassie purposely left Pollard out of his initial WC squad
The floor is yours wanker
...are you about to start opining on your love of bones and arse licking?
Fattex...
Just as I thought you pathetic twat
Zero substance
‘ South Africa coach Jacques Nienaber slams suggestions that one of the 33 players chosen for the Rugby World Cupwould fake an injury. Fly-half Handre Pollard was a shock omission from the Springboks' squad for France as he is not fully fit after a calf injury. Fellow World Cup winners, centre Lukhanyo Am and lock Lood de Jager were also ruled out of the September 8-October 28 tournament’
So that stupid clowns says Pollard was a shock omission and then in the next line says because he had not fully recovered from a calf strain - talk about fucking stupid
You have to be profoundly stupid if you think Rassie would leave out a fit and tested player like Pollard - get fucking real
Pollard had not played a game of rugby at the time the WC squad had to be announced
He came off the bench for Leicester the weekend before he was called into the Bok squad
Fuck I can’t believe I’m even having to have this debate - it’s beyond fucking stupidity
Regardless of anything which coach on the planet would leave a fit Pollard out of their WC squad - look no further than that point. Geez Moz you are really thick sometimes - seriously
Mozart
The story is real tripe. The submission that Pollard was left out was a shock is BS/ The player list was siubmitted in the last week of May 2023. By that date Polard wasinjured and did not play any rugby for four months,
Because of what happened in the past World Rugby included a condition that any inhured plae on the player list is barred from being replaced should they be unable to play in the WC tournament/.
So if Pollard was on the player list and unabl to play in the RWC the Springboks his replacement would not have been possible . That was the case in 2015 when various players who had not played rugby for up to 14 months were in he squad and the squad for instance had Alberts - who did not play any rugby in that series and Meyer could not replaec him. There included were on analysis about 8 players wss unplayable.- Meyer threatened to have Alberts replaced but the RWC would not allow such a replacement. As a result of the Japan disaster virtuaally only 23 players were usable and they had to play in all the round robin matchess and by the time the play-offs the 23 players who had to play in virtually all matches was "dead on their feet" . That was a major part of the 2015 WC fiasco, Erasmus was not prepared to take chances and end up in the disastrous Meyer 2015 situation.
So Pollard was on the standbylist of replacemet provided he return to play rugby before the star of the RWC.and Pollard was called up as a replacement for Marx.. What turned out was that both injruies was in the hooker position and was a major problem in the final duing which Mbonambi was injured,
The fact is that in 2019 Willemse was on that list of players who were advised to keep high fitness level and RWC allowed the rplacemet. as they may be called in to join the squad. When Jesse Kriel got injured - Wilemse was called up and the RWC had no prblem with that.
One oher thing - the touaments are tough and hre wukk akwys be c cas for calling up replacemnts. To claim otherwise is ridiculous.
/
I have found no rule that says a player can’t be replaced if selected with an injury that doesn’t resolve. Please provide the rule….cut and paste.
And even if this was true Pollard’ s value to the Boks was so great, I would have selected him anyway and lived with a squad of 32 players. Hell Klein only played against Romania and Hendrikse never played best I can tell. Was having those two guys there worth dramatically reducing the chance of having Pollard there.
We weren’t going to win the WC without him, as it proved to be the case. But he was on track to be ready for the WC…not selecting him was SHOCKINGLY dumb.
"I have found no rule that says a player can’t be replaced if selected with an injury that doesn’t resolve. Please provide the rule….cut and paste."
"As all of them are key men and were star players in Japan four years ago, eyebrows were understandably raised when they were not among the players presented to the audience and capped by South African Rugby Union president Mark Alexander.
Given their standing in the group, injuries were all that could explain their omission, and that was confirmed by the SA Rugby media release issued simultaneously with the announcement.
“Flyhalf Handle Pollard (calf), Lukhanyo Am (knee) and Lood de Jager (chest problem) have been placed on standby with six other players. The Springbok coaches were hopeful that they may return to full training before the start of the tournament and be available for call up in the event of injury,” read the release."
And yes, I know it's not the rule, but it's an article from a legitimate source supporting the existance of such rule.
I've known this for a long time as it's been discussed in various rugby shows over the years...way back in 2015 it was vital for jean to prove his fitness before squad announcement because of this.
If you can’t accept this as proof, please quote the law/rule refuting this.
If the law doesn’t exist, I’m supposed to find a quote that says the law doesn’t exist? If the law exists it has to be down in black and white somewhere, far more logical for you to quote the law. The only law I can find is that only injured players or players with compassionate issues can be replaced. I find nothing about whether that injury couldn’t have existed at the time the team is announced.
So rather than trying to find the rule…I left it to ChatGTP
Yes, a player who is known to be injured before the Rugby World Cup starts can still be replaced if they do not recover in time to play, but there are specific conditions surrounding this.
If a team selects an injured player for the World Cup squad with the hope that they will recover, and it later becomes clear that the player will not be fit in time for the tournament, the team can request a replacement. However, the same process applies:
The key consideration is that the player must be declared medically unfit. Teams are not penalized for selecting players who are injured before the tournament, as long as they follow the proper protocols for replacement.
Now I have no idea if this is right, but it seems logical. The team is clearly disadvantaged if it selects an injured player who doesn’t recover to participate. And how do you define an injured player, almost every team member probably has an injury of some kind…it would be a pointless rule which is very hard to police.
Far more likely that it’s a Bok rule under Rasmus not to select injured players for the squad. Except of course if your name is Kolisi.
Um Kolisi played in the warm up matches against Wales and NZ pre the WC proving his match fitness
But not pre the team announcement.
Can you please ask ChatG why 4 Nines.
Hahahaha! That might blow the whole system blob, and turn off electricity around the world….do you want to be responsible for that?
Well we can't have that .................. I'll ask oom ouMaaik. Personally I think one of em would've been cut but for mighty Marx's injury.
"If the law doesn’t exist, I’m supposed to find a quote that says the law doesn’t exist."
Nope, find something explaining the rules that state under which circumstances replacements can occur.
Moz, I quoted an article from Supersport.com mentioning the the rule...so the rule probably exist...if you say the SS article is wrong prove it with a link...and ChatGPT seems to agree with your assertion...
I accept that...that means the articles and numerous discussions with regards to pre injured players are also wrong.
I would still like to read the actual rules and laws governing squad replacements, but I couldn't find it...still not to happy to have this dispute solved by a robot without any tangible proof...talk about apeal to authority...
It’s an interesting point…my searches turned up nothing on this rule. So I went to Chat, not as an authority but as a higher powered search. I would hope their search included all the published rules. In my experience if Chat feels they don’t have the data, they decline to answer,
But I agree, it would be more definitive not coming from a black box.
28,000 posts