The Ruckers Forum

Forum » Rugby » General Stuff » Pathetic Sharks
Login to reply
 
 
 
4123 Topic: Pathetic Sharks
Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 00:36:58

who effectively mirrored the pathetic Bulls performance earlier in the day. The reason behind their failings is obvious, the forwards are being out muscled and are losing the physical battles starting with the set pieces.

 

A closer examination of the make up of the sides and one can see why they are losing the physical contest.

 

What is this fixation with Franco v/d Merwe as a lock? The guy is useless - apart from the odd line-out take, I see nothing more from this guy who is a physical liability much like Jeandre Kruger is for the Bulls. Steph du Toit comes on for the second half for the Sharks and makes an immediate physical impact bashing the Oz test hooker out the way and contributes well for te rest of the half. While I rate Bresler, young Jandre Marais is a better option for the Sharks as he adds more physicality.

 

As much as Burden is a handy all round player, he too lacks physical clout as a forward. Boy are the Sharks missing Bismark. But in young Cyle Cooper they have a better option than Burden. 

 

Then one needs to look at their loosies, with Coetzee probably being their most physical, which in itself is a laugh for that is hardly his role. Kankan and Daniel are ball players, not physical preditors. The Sharks trio without Alberts or Deysel, lacks balance. 

 

So in short the Sharks lack grunt at hooker, lock and 7 and therein lies the issue. Plum needs to wake up to this fact and change things quickly. A Sharks pack of 1. Beast 2. Cooper 3. Jannie 4. Bresler 5. Marais 6. Daniel 7. Steph du Toit 8. Coetzee........when Alberts returns, move Steph du Toit to 5 with Marais at 4 and Bresler to the bench.

 

The Bulls have a similar issue, with the poor Wepner at 2, the physically ineffective Jeandre Kruger at 5 and no beef at 7. Ludeke needs to heed the same wake up call and select a real pack of forwards along the lines of 1. Mellett  2. Chiliboy 3. Kirsten 4. Flip 5. Willemse 6. Botha 7. Hattingh 8. Spies

 

The Stormers need a similar move in restoring the more physical Liebenberg at 2 and discarding the physically ineffective de Kock Steenkamp at 4.

 

The SA sides are a sad excuse for the physically imposing sides they should be and this is purely down to poor selections.

 

Hats off to the Saders and Brumbies for teaching our lot a hard lesson. I dont like Jake but he kicked my arse on the weekend. He is way ahead of Ludeke, Plumtree and Coetzee - hardly a tough task!!


Boklogic

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1950
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 00:58:52

Nothing wrong with Plumtree and Ludeke. Plumtree has gotten the Sharks to 2 finals last year and play-offs many seasons before. Doesn't matter the result of the those particular finals, he still had to get there. Just admit it, Jake is a world class coach.

Plumtree cant make the Sharks rock up and play. His only problem is his perserverance of Steyn at 12.

 

You make a big noise and rightfully so about the forwards who were out-muscled and bullied on the day. No denying that but lets hear your take on Frans Steyn now after the latest 4 or 5 rounds. Is he still the best 12 we have in SA?


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 01:56:12

 In a match that the forwards lost for the Sharks, the credentials of the Sharks backs is not up for debate. The backs cant play when their forwards are getting thew arses kicked.

 

Damn right Frans is the best 12 in the country. He did no more or less than any other Shark back yesterday - they all spent most of their match defending.

 

I have no issue with any of the Sharks backs, for their forwards are letting them down. The only issue I have is playing McLeod ahead of Reinach.


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 03:49:16

[removed]

I really have to laugh.  I knew in advance what your response would be every one else was to blame - Steyn was fine.   There is no way that the forwards of the Sharks were not  bad - but the backs was OK and especially Steyn was fine.   

Let me explain - Steyn buggered up badly.  You did not see that he missed 3 tackles in the first 10 minutes of the game and afterwards made no effort to tackle his opponents while hanging around and letting other players make the tackles he should have made.   He never made a relieving kick that was straight down the middle of the field - allowing the Brumbies to set u a new attack - which let to  a Brumbies try.  He never kicked a ball away straight at Mogg that stymied the only effort at attack during the first half  by the Sharks.

You never realized that he was completely bad that he was moved to full back when Lu[removed] was injured and he made a complete ass of himself in that position.   

The Sharks backs - but for Steyn - was fine.   He made such a mess that Plumtree had to sub him because he was so bad.   However instead of subbing him outright  - he was sent to full back because of Lu[removed]'s injury. At full back he really was a joke in full view of the public - but according to you he did nothing wrong there as well.

I can only say - when would you realize that Steyn gets worse and worse every game he plays in.   I cannot believe that you do not see his glaring deficiencies.   Who do you think you are bluffing but yourself.   Steyn is just not good enough to play rugby on Super level and I am sure that Plumtree and the general public realises it.

If the Sharks ever hopes to make any headway in the compeititon the only way out would be to remove Steyn from the team.   He has destroyed the backline of the Sharks - and you are the only fool who cannot see it.   Hell - but I know you are as thick as they come and do not fail to glorify Steyn  - but really this description of fine for the backline was really a joke.  Steyn was atrocious - the real contributor to a dead backline of the Sharks now for rounds and you missed it all.  What a laugh - you get funnier with each post you make. 


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 11:57:07

Mike I am not interested in your prejudiced views on Frans - The Sharks forwards lost that game thanks to a lack of physicality - that had stuff all to do with Frans. ]

For the record, I have not read your post above as it will be the usual crap about how Frans single handedly lost the game for the Sharks, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaaa.

 

I dont respect your knowledge of rugby enough to bother with reading your crap and responding in kind - its just the usual negative Frans garbage - when we know the Sharks forwards failed and the backs suffered as a result


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 12:23:36

[removed]

OK - don't read facts - just keep on living in dreamland.  I am not prejudiced against any player - I look at their performances critically and I got the real message of what they produce.  That really is the long and the short of the matter.  


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 13:29:59

Mike you are extremely prejudiced against Frans, thats a fact. Hell he had a great game in the first week and you said he was below par - what complete prejuditial [removed] that is.

 

Mike you dont provide facts about anything, its just a load of old crap that I tend to look at if I am after a laugh


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 14:47:22

[removed]

OK - I'll make your day and want to say that the Testrugby site rates on a point system based on all the potential activities of a player on the field of play - not the comments of newspaper reporters you accept whenever it fit your arguments - and for comparison purposes I give the points in respect of De Allende as well:-

Round                                            Steyn                      De Allende

     2                                                   75                               120

     3                                                 115                               200

     4                                                 130                               200

     5                                                 135                                  *

                     TOTALS                    455                               520

The above indiates that in four games Steyn did less positively and more negatively  than De Allende did in three games - and considerably so.  Let me add at the same time that 200 points is more or less on par with the performance of a good player if he does not  score a try - it goes up considerably. if he did score score a try ot more.      160 to `199 indicates an average player in a position like center and below 159 points indicateds a sub-par/poor player who fail to produce anything of substance.

Let me go on and explain what Steyn did in Round 1 - the round he was so lauded by you and how he managed to get only 75 points.

Go forward                          =          5

Tackles                               =          4

Give away penalty              =           1  *

Lost possession                  =           2  *

Players get heavily penalized for indiscretions and poor play and it cost Steyn dearly.   Do you now understand why the credit given to Steyn by the reporters really was a joke - the man was really bad.   He was bad in all the games he played in - he never got to the average or good points situation at all.

 

     


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 16:54:33

Those stats, as all stats are, are a load of [removed]. Stats provide no context and do not interest me in the slightest. You will never make a point regarding a players performance based on stats.

 

Frans was better than de Allende in the first 2 games, de Allende was better in the third game - I dont need stats to tell me that - my observations are what counts, not a bunch of meaningless figures - rugby is a sport played on a field not an equation delivered in a lecture theatre


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 18:45:36

[removed]

Rugby is a game in which certain activities of players are positive or negative for the side they represent.  These activities include always:-

Positives

  *   The scorng of tries

  *    A major contribution to scoring of tries;

  *    Conversion of penalties and tries

  *    Line breaks

  *    Carrying forward of balls

  *    Turnovers of balls from the opposition

  *     Tackles

This is not a full list - but basically represents the positive things a backline player can contribute.

Negatives

  *     Missing tackles

  *     Losing possession

  *     Giving away penalties

Irrespective of what you say - the above actions by players do determine the outcome of matches in the final [removed]ysis.   It is not meaningless stats - it is facts of life and those actions or inactions determine whether a player performs well or not.

If the players perform well - the above actions will confirm it - similarly the information will confirm when a player is not performing up to standard.   Your idea that it is meaningless is baseed purely on prejudice and the fact that players favoured by you does not perform up to standard.   You prefer then to use the fictional  or better still what newspaper performers think of players or your obviously biased own observations.    

Really [removed] as a lover of rugby - and I know you are - I expect much more from you.   Try and think of the game in real terms - not on a fictional basis where some players favoured by you cannot do wrong - while others are condemned by you on the same basis as always being in the negative. 

Since you have no basis of fact to support your observations you indeed are making yourself look bad in tthe opinion of other rugby lovers. 

 


Marty70

Status: Orange peeler
Posts: 56
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 19:29:56

For a moment i was actually thinking you were coming right [removed] and then you had to end it in your unique way lol. Yes Jake White is a great coach not just by his game plan but how he gets his players to perform for one another.

For you to maintain your position on Steyn is unbelievable. Are you in love with the guy or something? He clearly had a terrible game. He totally messed up the defence running lines.He kicked when he should pass, He runs crashball when he could side step...it shows a player in serious form trouble. Nothing against the guy.Its his performance that is the problem. You can keep argueing he played well in rounds 2 and 3  which i dont agree but for once be honest with yourself and admit he is nowhere near the form he was last year.

The loss to the brumbies was predicted! Anyone with a rugby brain knew the sharks were playing badly and needed to step up.I agree with your points on grunt. As much as i like Burden he is more an impact player than a starter. Your choices for the forwards for the Sharks are good , i just hope the big boys come back soon.

I didnt watch the full bulls game but they were not that bad in the second half. Unfortunatly for them they met a Crusaders side desperate for a win. Its funny how all things change in a weekend.The weekend before we were singing SA teams praises for their physicality against Nz sides. How things change...Thats rugby!

 

 


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 19:33:32

Crap, stats dont tell you that in scoring a try x beat 5 players versus a try where player y just has to fall over the line after receiving the ball in space.

 

Kicking for poles does not make a rugby player a good one, it makes him a good kicker - Morne is hardly a world beating rugby player, but boy can he kick.

 

How do you define 'making a significant contribution to scoring a try', what about a major contribution to a passage of play that does not lead to a try? Would a great flat pass putting a player into space constitute and major contribution to scoring a try?

 

Carrying forward of ball - so do stats tell you that in carrying a ball 5m, player x beat 2 defenders versus player y carrying the ball 20m with no defenders to beat having been put into space by another player. On paper it looks like player y is better when in fact the eye will tell you that x was far more impressive.

 

Line breaks - do stats tell you than in making a break, a lock ran through or handed off a flyhalf, renowned for being a weak defender.

 

Missed tackle - do stats tell you that in missing a tackle a player was off balance, hindered by another player, missed the tackle through miscommunication, had over run the cover defence and been stepped

 

You see Mike, stats are a load of [removed] - end of


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 19:58:56

If you watch games carefully the answer is all there for anyone to see.  Contributing to scoring a try was what Labuschagne did in the first try scored by Pretorius in th Highlander game.  Capice.

Talking about a lock - yes it is a line break and I assume you refer to Jantjies as a weak defender - which he is.   Normally though it would be an exception and in the case of backline players a line break is easy to see.  That missed tackle by Steyn of a Brumbie player does represent a line break.   

A great passage of play that does not lead to scoring of a try would have added points in varuious other categories like ball carries and line breaks - so it is favourable for the attacking team as well.

Both ball carrying examples mentioned by you counts as carries.  

A missed tackle remains a missed tackle whatsover you say.

You see [removed] your arguments are a load of [removed].  Also [removed] is a prejudgmnent of player performance and then sayiing a player had a good game - if in fact he was [removed] poor.  But that is the [removed] style so we must accept it as another show of rank stupidity.   

 


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 21:03:47

Mike you are so stupid that my point has just gone straight over your head. Read my post again and then try answer it


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 21:25:16

[removed]

Talking about not understanding anything - I read your post and answered it by giving examples and stating where a move without ending in a try is treated,.  I also gave an indication by example what is meant by a try assist.   

There is just plain stupidity on your part - to quote one example.   A player who carries the ball 20 meters is given the same credit as a player carrying balls 5 meters and having to break takls in the process - distance has no meaning in this case   If the player breaks two tackles and make an advance of say five meters it can count as a line break if the player in the pricess off-loads the ball effectively to another player.

The silly suppositions raised by you is what it really meant - siliness to pretend that the performances of players cannot be judged by what a player does on a field of play.  

You would obviously try and raisd questions - but those is answered by looking and [removed]yzing what a player does on the field of play and the consequences of what he does.  

This story about context means in fact nothing - a player making a stellar contribution would have good points,.   A player with no contributiton would struggle to make points.   Your whole argument is deluded by the players that you rated as good before the game and then remains good - irrespective of their performances on the field of play.   If they do badly you write it off that that type of things happen and should not be considered as disadvantageous to the team and negatives on the part of players.  

Your arguments are facetious and not in any way of any value..


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 11707
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 21:40:53

 Mike a little more humility please. I fully agree with snapster that once the sharks forwards are at full strength the improvement in the backline will be exponential. 

You are becoming a bit shrill. Hahahhahahaha calm down!

 

 


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 18, 2013, 21:46:27

Beeno

Will they?  I am not sure at all.   The Sharks forwards were on par with the Stormers in round 3 and the backline achieved zero - so what makes you so certain it would not happen again?


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 11:29:00

Just as I thought, you are just too stupid to comprehend my points on the fact that stats do not provide context.

 

Anyone who reads my points will comprehend the fact that stats play a very small part in painting the actual picture of what happens on a field.

 

There is only one factor that defines a players performance and that is the eye of the observer - stats would at best provide a complementary addition to the overall picture. A coach and supporter would rely on his observation of the game to get a general impression of the players and teams performance, a coach would then rely on a recording of the match for an in depth [removed]ysis of the performance of players and team. Some coaches might look at stats, others wont bother........stats if applicable would at best constitute 10% of the overall picture.


Boklogic

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1950
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 11:37:12

 I agree with [removed] here.

 

So tell us this then Saff. How come 9 of us SEE, with our OWN eyes, not stats, that Frans is playing [removed] and his crippling the backline but you see something totally difference. It just so happens that stats back the 9 of us up but not u.

 

Could this not just be a case of you not admitting you wrong or you are looking for something that is not there. Trust me, I wanted Steyn playing well. I wanted him to be the Bok 12 but I must be realistic now. He has failed badly and Boks will be worse off having him around now.. We must move on unless Steyn can capture the form he had 5 years ago!


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 11:55:08

No I am not wrong. Frans had two good games in the first two rounds and has suffered in the last two thanks to a poor performance by his forwards.

 

I am not saying Frans has been good in his last two games, none of the Sharks players have been good.

 

I just find it pathetic that fingers are being pointed at Frans, when in fact the real issue is the fact that the Sharks forwards are losing the physical battles. This is where the issue starts and this has affected the performance of McLeod, Reinach, Lambie, Jordaan, JP, Mvovo, Ndungane and Ludik.

 

[removed] me all I hear is how crap Frans is when in reality he has been no better or worse than the backs named above. Hell we have JP a Bok hero playing like a club player, Jordaan a young prospect making no impression, Lambie playing like Morne and Reinach touted as the new big thing being relegated to the bench. But no, lets all just jump on the Frans bandwagon and tell the world how [removed] he is.

 

Well its all crap, he had two good outings and then struggled to make a contribution in the next 2 games thanks to a lack of possession given his forwards were losing the collisions against the Brumbies and a heart on the sleeve defensive effort by the Kings.

 

Frans has been no better or worse than the rest of the Sharks and thats a fact


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 12:09:34

[removed]

There is one thing you do very well - and that is find excuses for the players you put on a pedestal.  You look at games and do not see where they bugger up.   If they do - it is normally written off as "it happens".

Take the Steyn case.   Last year when Steyn made no impression in the tests he played in Morne was to blame.  We could live with that since Morne was poor by all standards.

This year - when Steyn produced nothing of substance - the blame game goes wider - now it is the whole team that under-perform and Steyn did not have any bugger - ups at all.   The latter was clear to see - not by stats - but by visual evaluation.   A team as a whole can under-perform - but that can be made worse by bugger-ups of individuals and the worst bugger-upper was Steyn in the backline.   Ok - it just happens that he got run over and missed three tackles.   It just happens that he made a relieving kick down the center of the field leading ultimately to a Brumbies try.  It just happens that he destroyed the only attack of the Sharks in the first half - by kicking the ball straight into Mogg's hands.   It just happens that Steyn was nowhere in sight when Lambie made a good break and he was nowhere to be found to receive a pass from Lambie (even the commentators mentioned that one) .   All of the above in one game hey.   Everything negative "just happens" does it not? 


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 12:17:37

Crap I did not say anything about Morne when it came to Frans. I said Frans was good in the tests he played last year and stand by that and his player ratings confirm that. He was our best test 12 last year, certainly better than Jean who did little of note in any of the tests he played.

 

I had an issue with Morne, because I dont rate him as a player. I said nothing of Morne affectings Frans's performances - why would I, given I said Frans was good in the tests he played last year.

 

So once again you are wrong


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 12:24:35

[removed]

Selective memory again.  I wonder who said that no 12 can function properly with Morne at 10?   Ask Mozart - he would definitely remember your statement in that regard.


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 12:54:56

Nope it was not me, in fact I think it was you who said it


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 13:31:52

Sure I did - I echoed your comments on the issue.


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 13:35:01

If I concluded that Frans was good at 12 for the Boks last year, why would I say Morne was inhibiting him?


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 13:49:42

[removed]

You were as per normal virtually the only member who said Steyn was good - the rest of the members virtually all alleged that you were wrong.   You consequently justified Steyn's inability to play any role whatsoever in attacking play by blaming Morne for that aspect and coming up with a story that centers nowadays cannot attack - because of tight defensive patterns.  

Those were your two excuses for Steyn doing zilch in that respect last year


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 14:07:00

Disagree, I said he was good in the tests and my take was confirmed by the write up's and player ratings Frans received.

 

I did have an issue with the amount of ball Morne was kicking away, but what ball Frans did get, he carried strongly and I remember one break where he stepped two players, it was great stuff.


Ceradyne

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3104
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 14:26:17

The last time that Frans Steyn played at 12, next to Morne Steyn, for the Springboks, this was what he achieved and what is regarded as "......Those were your two excuses for Steyn doing zilch in that respect last year..."

 

K/P/R - 2/4/7

Meters Ran - 19

Clean Breaks - 1

Defenders beaten - 5

Off-loads - 1

Tackles - 6/2

 

Hardly zilch, IMO.

 


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 14:34:28

Yep Cera, good old Mike keeps making it all up when it comes to Frans


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 14:49:20

Thanks for the stats - it is most revealing.  Clean breaks made  - that being included in the 19 meters he made in ball carries.  Average distance carried per carry  - 2,7 meters.   Huge achievement..   The off-load was as ineffective as his other so-called off-loads were this year.   Tackles made 5 - missed 2.  Wondeful to miss only two tackles.   I guess that was very good in your book.   What about losing possession or giving away penalties - since that was not mentioned in the above stats.  Hope there was none of those in evidence though.

He did squat in attack and even the stats proved it.  Crashballing was the norm and he was not effective or of any  value in any attacking move.

Also admirable how [removed] suddenly lap up the stats because Ceradyne said it was good.   Please Ceradyne - stop being a bloody idiot and properly read stats and interpret them.   Those stats were no good - especially the meters gained in one game though 7 efforts were patheric and the 2 missed tackles more so.


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 15:38:32

Well Mike, given I dont have access to the game at this very moment, all I can rely on is Cera's stats and they tell me more than I need to know in that Frans beat 5 defenders, made a clean break and effected an off-load. Confirming that he did much more than your pathetic take on his performance.

 

I dont recall the match as many have passed since, but what I do know is that the Boks were not playing an expansive game at the time, so for Frans to beat 5 defenders and make a clean break is testament to a good game and hence the fact that he scored highly in terms of player rating and received favourable write ups in the press.

 

The stats provide no context and I'd have to watch the game again - something I cant be asked to do - but what it does tell me is that you dont know your rugby, you harbour a prejudice against Frans and your take on his displays is a load of [removed]


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 15:56:10

[removed]

Sure they were not playing an expansive game.  Morne kicked away most balls and Steyn only received 13 balls the whole game.   Kicked 2 (one a relieving kick from about 5 meters from the tryline that rolled along the ground - was pounced upon by the English and they scored a try), he passed the ball four times and he crashballed 7 times after making a total of 19 meters in all the carries.   

No expansive play possible taking into account all the kicking and crashballing.   As it is there is no evidence of even a minute effort by steyn to be part of the attacking strategy, in any way.


Ceradyne

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3104
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 16:02:20

Mike, you are the one who uses stats as and when it suits you. You have, by the way, still not disclose the source or the credibilty of "your stats" despite my numerous requests. You are the one who say that you have to look at the stats in context, but you are also tho one who has been found out to be trwisting facts and stats around to suit your argument/s.

 

Frans missed 2 out 8 tackles in that game. He succeeded with 6 and missed 2. That gives him a 75% strike rate as far as tackles are concerend. He has not conceded a single penalty in that game. In addition, I do not give a crap what your opinion is about the off-load. You have said many times that you do not agree with "ESPN's" assessment of an off-load, but you also have not provided any prove to the contrary.

 

Yes, you can probably criticize the meters gained as being "poor" but all in all he had the third highest meters gained score, for that aspect of the game, of the team.

 

Defenders beaten is just that. Defenders that have been beaten. It is not defenders beaten and subsequent distance ran with the ball.

 

In addition, there were only two Bok off-loads in the entire game. One by Frans Steyn and one by Greyling.

 

Fact is that you are trying to create the impression that Steyn was nothing but a passenger (doing zilch) in the game, and that is BS and nothing less.

 

I have told you before. If you want to make a point then do so, but do not exagirate in the process, because then you stuff up your whole argument.


Ceradyne

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3104
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 16:10:27

While I was busy typing the last post and the last paragraph of it, Mike was actually busy doin precisely what I was talking about. "Morne kicked away most balls and Steyn only received 13 balls the whole game."

 

To start off with, you actually have the wrong game. I was talking about the last game that Frans played outside of Morne Steyn, and that was the one between SA and NZ in Sept last year. In that game Morne kicked exactly 6 balls in the entire game. Pienaar kicked 11. Morne only received 13 balls as well. The same number as Frans. The two of us had an argument before about this particular game and you came up short on that occasion as well. Remember the argument that you had, saying that Morne cost us that game? When I said that at the time that Morne left the field the score were equal at 8 a piece, and you said that I was talking crap? Remember that. It was the very same game.  At that time it was Morne who cost us the game, now it seems to have been Frans. LOL


Saffex

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 9003
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 16:19:16

Yep Cera, once again we have DomMike speaking a load of [removed] when it comes to Frans - 5 defenders beat is exactly what I want from a 12, mixed in with the clean break and off-load. Third highest metres gained as well - yeah really sounds like Frans had a poor test!!!!!!

 

What a joke you are Mike


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 11707
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 17:23:05

I dont have the details but what I am certain of is that currently Steyn is but a shadow of the great player he was. I am very disappointed thus far.

When one thinks about it form in the backline is not great.  Goosen is now injured as is Habana. Jean is still okay but getting on. Taute has not set the world alight at 15 for the Stormers. Hougie is not firing and even JP is looking ordinary.

Morne is looking better than last year where some misguided posters ripped into him. He had been way over played and his form took a bad dip. Frans has no such excuse. Its a guess but for some while now I have sensed a lack of desire.

Its early days yet but picking a Bok backline now would be  a problem if current form is the yardstick.

Who really is shining?


clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 12618
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 17:42:53

Ceradyne and [removed]

It remains [removed] stats for a center.   I took the ESPN stats and it ie hereunder for the lat two tests Steyn played in next to Morne Steyn from ESPN

All Black Test - Dunedin

C Nonu 0/0 0 1/2/7 31 0 4 0 1 5/1 0/0 0 0/0

C FPL Steyn 0/0 0 2/4/7 19 1 5 1 0 6/2 0/0 0 0/0

 

Australia - SA Test

C Barnes 0/0 16 8/3/5 16 0 0 0 1 9/0 0/0 0 0/0

C FPL Steyn 0/0 6 1/5/7 7 0 0 0 0 5/1 0/0 0 0/0

Argentina - SA Test

C Fernandez 1/0 5 1/4/5 28 2 2 0 0 8/0 0/0 0 0/0

C FPL Steyn 1/0 5 3/7/8 28 0 2 1 0 1/1 0/0 1 0/0

Compare the above in the three tests with the Stats of Steyn's immediate opposers in the two tests - they outplayed him comprehensively in all three tests and he was really not worth anything at all - a [removed] center at best. 

Ball Carries

Opponents   -   17 carries - meters gained 75 meters - average per carry 4,5 meters

Steyn            -   22 carries - meters gained 54 meters  - average meters gained 2,4 meters.

Tackles

Opponents    -    Tackles made    22 tackles -   Tackles missed 1 tackle

Steyn            -     Tackles made    12 tackles  -  Tackles missed  5 tackles

You started the stats war and this is merely a continuation.  After looking at the above figure I really now realise how [removed] poor Steyn really was compared to his opponents.

Have fun guys and next time I will get the stats for the Super 15 games and rubbed your noses in it as well.  Two dolts of the worst order - the most idotic posters around.

 


Ceradyne

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3104
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 18:22:07

Ou Mike, you sure are something, aren't you? Remember when you started a similar thread and did the one [removed]yisis after the other? Remember what Moz told you? It is not just a matter of puloing out the figures, adding them up and then that proves your point. That particular thread died a slow death, without coming to any conclusion of any kind. Now you are trying it again. You have a problem. You decide that you have a dislike in a certai player/coach and then you jump on the bandwagon, insulting everybody left right and centre. As I said earlier, at some stage you had this thing for Morne Steyn, and you used stats from this exat same game, that I refered to to prove how useless Morne was and how he cost us that game.

 

Now you are trying to use the same stats (yes, I know that I brought it up, but you are using it) to try and prove that Frans Steyn was teh culprit. Previously you more or less tried to prove that Goosen almos salvaged this game for us, by using the same set of match stats, and when you dicovered what really happened you waltzed off intro the sunset with your tail between your legs.

 

To get back to your last post, you have to have a look at the amount of possession of the teams, the territorial advantage, etc, and work from there on. It does not help using of few figures to draw a conclusion.

 

And then finally. I came into the argument to point out that you were wrong that Frans Steyn did nothing in 2012. Your used the word "Zilch", which is not true at all. Just to make it clear. I am not saying that Frans Steyn is the prime example of an inside centre, but he is nowhere as useless as you would like everybody to believe.


Beeno1

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 11707
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 19, 2013, 21:07:01

 Windpomp no advice from you please. You dont seem to notice both sides have been insulting. 

Thanks


Ceradyne

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3104
RE: Pathetic Sharks
March 20, 2013, 10:16:10

Who rattled your cage? What is your take on exagerating an issue to try and support your argument? You probably do not have an issue because you have been doing exactly the same for years with your similar pathetic fixation with Victor Matfield. Ditto [removed], Mike, etc with Morne Steyn and ditto the boring issue with [removed]' weight, hair, etc. And ditto the issue with Moz' wealth, etc.


Leave a reply:

You need to be logged in to leave a reply.
 
 

From The Sideline