CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Apr 2015, 13:52#41
Dave
I base it on a number of factors. These include the quality of tackles made - the ability to protect balls in breakdown situations - the recovery of balls in such situations. Those are all factors where Labuschagne is showing greater strength than Botha - who are not particularly effective in all those cases. They are very much on par insofar as ball carries are concerned, but Labuschagne also shades Botha in line out work.
I have no problem with Botha as a loosie - but he has to prove that he is the best to qualify for selection and as a result of injury there was no proof of that over the last two years that he merits selection.
Unlike some people on this site I never support selection on the basis of reputation, size or age - my criteria is proven performance. And I do not manufacture things like pace and size to fit my justification of player support.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Apr 2015, 14:46#43
Dave
If you compare his performance before his injuries he came second by a mile in ball carries, breakdown ball protection and recovery as well as tackle stats behind Labuschagne. You can check that data if you wish to - but generalized statements do not convince me at all.
I am being deadly honest - the guy must prove himself by fact and not fiction before he can be considered for selection. At this stage - after an absence of nearly two years there is no proof and in the absence of that it is highly dangerous to say "he will have recaptured that form by the WC and will make Labs look like a puppy.....this kid is in a different class."
All I say bring the proof and I am perfectly prepared to change my mind if and when the proof of performance is clearly identified.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Apr 2015, 14:58#45
Go and look at the stats for 2013 and tell me the result. Meyer always selected Bulls players ahead of anybody else in his coaching career and that gave Botha an advantage. Statistically and on the field of play eh was not better than L abuschagne.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Apr 2015, 16:39#47
Based on fact or fiction? I would much rather have a player that can do ball protection and recovery and a high tackle record than a player who is not doing that in matches and whose tackle record is much less .
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Apr 2015, 17:17#49
Ball Protection and recovery outside of turnovers are not in stats and for that you have to watch games and see what happened on the field of play. Turnovers in possession through ball recovery in 2013 indicated 19 by Labuschagne and none by Botha. The problem is that most loosies that are promoted to play at no 7 has no ability to cause breakdown turnovers and their ball protection and recovery are very limited - if not non-existent as is the case with Alberts. When watching games you can easily see what Labuschagne does when a team mate is tackled and look what other players do.
Why do you think did the Bulls contract him and pay him double the contract price compared to what Jacques Du Plessis is paid. It all centers about the breakdown issue - coupled to the tackle capacity, which is not looked at by most members of the public.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Apr 2015, 22:33#51
Dave
Where did you get this idea from that Labuschagne is small? You are on about that as much as Mozart being on about Serfontein's pace. That without the basic physical data being quoted. Why is Botha - who are 2cm shorter than Labuschagne and circa 5 kgs lighter - not too small too play at 7?
And you missed out on something and that is the turnover data for 2013 which I did provide . Labuschagne 19 (the second highest of any loosie in SA after Brussow) - Botha zero.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 Apr 2015, 00:42#53
Ceradyne
OK Here is some stats for you iro of Super 15 for 2013:-
Labuschagne - Matches Played 16
Tackles Made = 234 Tackles Missed = 10 Average per Game = 14,625 Missed tackle ratio = 4,1%
Botha - Matches Played = 11 games
Tackles Made = 110 Tackles Missed = 7 Average per Game = 10 Missed tackle ratio = 6%
Botha did well in averaging 10 tackles per match played - but it was way below the average of Labuschagne at 14,625. His missed tackle ratio was also slightly worse than the Labuschagne ratio.
Where the numerical data is not available relates to the ball protection and own ball recovery of players. Test Rugby stats indicate the number of turnovers reflected as in the info provided above.
Botha did not play in games since June 2013 when he was injured and thus far this year had two bench appearances, while Labuschagne started in 6 games. Labuschagne had the highest tackle stats in Super 15 - all teams and players - in 2015 up till Round 6 - but was overhauled since he missed 3 games (Rounds 7, 8 and 9). In view of the limited game time of Botha - comparisons with Labuschagne this year would not be a fair reflection of the value of Botha as a player.
Other issues where Labuschagne edged Botha was tries scored. Labuschagne 3 - Botha 1.
18 Apr 2015, 01:02#54
Yep. I nailed it when I said that your comprehension skills are f'cked. Read my post again. I don't give a sh!t about your Labuschagne stats. I am interested in this part:
"Go and look at the stats for 2013 and tell me the result. Meyer always selected Bulls players ahead of any body else in his coaching career and that gave Botha an advantage."
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 Apr 2015, 02:45#55
Liggies makes a lot of process tackles. But for a supposedly athletic and fast loosie, you don't seem him hunting in the backs like a Big Joe used to do. Mostly just hanging about the rucks building that process tackle count. Liggies is a fine player, don't get me wrong....but a WC loosie, no way.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
18 Apr 2015, 07:03#56
Mozart
You have a habit of not answering questions - so here goes again:-
What is the difference between a "process" tackle and another tackle?
In previous discussions it was clear - a process tackle is made by players Mozart does not like - tackles are made by players you like. A process tackle is normally weak and ineffective according to you - a tackle is not.
I once asked you - is Matfield making "process tackles" - since all his tackles are weak and ineffective? The silence that followed was deafening.
The other laughable thing is that you favour Alberts as the 7. Is he not "mostly just hanging about the rucks" while averaging 5 tackles per match, with a very high missed tackle ratio. While Labuschagne is normally the first loosie at breakdown points and consequently involve in the mauls and ball recovery process - Alberts arrives late and hangs around the mauls. Alberts has NEVER recovered a breakdown ball - he has never ever been accused of protecting breakdown balls - so your favourite 7 is useless as a loosie.
By the way the figures given relates to the tackling stats of Arno Botha and Labuschagne - not between any other players and applied to 2013. Where Big Joe came into the picture only you would know, since Big Joe played at 8 - not at 7, so you are confusing facts again .
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 Apr 2015, 07:31#57
OOm this 26 year old journeyman is not going to become an international flank....just like Jordaan is not going to be an international centre. Stop going on about it you old coot, it's not happening.
19 Apr 2015, 12:37#59
Still busy collecting the stats, ou Maaikie?
19 Apr 2015, 19:40#60
Ou Maaikie is definitely ignoring this thread again.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Apr 2015, 20:41#61
This is just like the thread where I said Paulse handled Lomu and he said it was Small. When I proved him wrong he attacked something else and pretended that was the subject of the debate. Same MO, same ignorance, same dishonesty.The man is a pathetic joke, inexplicably still taken seriously on here by some.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Apr 2015, 21:46#63
It would not happen if you answer simple questions put to you and instead use the sneaky avoidance strategy to get the minds away from what is under discussion. So answer please:-
What is the difference between a "process" tackle and another tackle?
I once asked you - is Matfield making "process tackles" - since all his tackles are weak and ineffective?
So he used what I wrote under another thread to carry on his useless campaign against me - while studiously avoiding questions I asked him. Not very nice because he made ridiculous statements as well and when questions follow - he avoids them like a plague and launch personal attacks.
19 Apr 2015, 21:52#64
What about the simple question about HM and the Bulls players, ou Maaikie?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Apr 2015, 22:10#65
Easy answer. In 2012 14 of the Bulls starting team was either in the starting line-up or on the bench of the Springboks. They were not all there together and after most flopped they were changed for other Bulls players.
Meyer himself said at the end of 2012 he used players he was familiar with in his selections and he obviously was familiar with the Bulls players. By June 2013 - when he selected Botha it was obvious that if there are two equal competitors for a position - the Bulls player will get the preference - since Meyer was familiar with them.
His squad selection in June 2013 had the same scenario. 12 players from the Bulls, 10 players from the Sharks, 4 players from the Stormers and none from the Cheetahs. By the time the RC came about and some players were injured, while others disgraced themselves - the scenario changed somewhat.
19 Apr 2015, 23:02#66
You are trying to twist things around again. Try again. Remember your own "FACT"...... "Meyer always selected Bulls players ahead of anybody else in his coaching career....."
Coincidentally, I have already checked on the numbers for 2012. I would like to see your version, though.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
19 Apr 2015, 23:15#67
I fully explained the list of names of Meyers selection of the Bulls players - who were part of Meyer's match day squads previously - and for that matter more than once and as you have checked it and did not make a statement that I was wrong - you probably ended up with the same players.
Up to the middle of 2013 if their was a squad vacancy as a result of injury or otherwise Meyer would always replace the player with another Bulls player. It was only when the favoured players were poor that he changed to players from other franchises.
If you could not determine and see what was going on at that stage of Meyer's period of coaching of the Springboks team - namely that the squad was a revolving door for Bulls players - you must be as blind as a bat. He has changed his selections somewhat since then - but the period I wrote about was in June 2013 - not at present.
19 Apr 2015, 23:58#68
No. You haven't and your remark about Meyer always favouring Bulls players is BS to say the least. In 2012, for instance, there were no games where the most players were Bulls players. In fact, if there was one team that can be seen as being favoured by Meyer, it has to be the Sharks. Go check. In 2012 there were only three tests (out of eleven) where there were not more Sharks players than any other side and in those three the Stormers had the most twice and on one occasion there were 6 X Sharks, 6 X Stormers and 6 X Bulls.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
20 Apr 2015, 00:53#69
Mike i have to agree wityh you Arano has not in any way proved he is ready for test rugby. He has yet really to prove he can han dle Super 15 rugby. Not saying he wonyt get there but he has alot to prove. Labbers has been outstanding in many respects so he may make the RWC - we shall see.
What is also certain is that Meyer in the early days favoured the bulle players. Also a fact is that he favours old bulle favourites. Witness his still having old man matfiled who will be 38 come RWC time!!! The papest lock ever to play for the Boks - name me a weaker lock. He recalled Steenkamp and Fourie Du Preez and Bakkies Botha. Would he have done this if the were not Bulle? He preffered JJ to Allende when Allende has been good for a few years now. He picked that mediocre bulls tighthead who name escapes me now. He even picked ou spiesies if memory serves me right.
No, only very poor performances from these players and the honestly of Bakkies to retire from international rugby stopped Meyer.
Hopefully Meyer is not as attached to the current bulle players and can now be more objective. Thankfully - the number of over rated bulle palyers being selected has declined.
Well said Beeno!!!
20 Apr 2015, 01:06#70
@Beeno. If Meyer favoured Bulls players he would have had more Bulls players than players from other sides in his teams. I dare anybody to show us the figures and prove that. Not even in his early tests did that happen
In his first series against England in 2012, for instance, when everybody was shouting about his "Blue Glasses", he had more Sharks than Bulls players in his teams twice, and in one he had more Stormers players than Sharks and Bulls players .
In the first test against England he had 9 Sharks, 3 Stormers, 7 Bulls, 2 Cheetahs and 1 overseas player in his team.
In the second test against England he had 9 Sharks, 3 Stormers, 7 Bulls, 2 Cheetahs and 1 overseas player in his team again.
In the third test against England he had 6 Sharks, 7 Stormers, 6 Bulls, 1 Cheetahs, 1 Lions and 1 overseas player in his team.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
20 Apr 2015, 01:27#71
At first I thought HM was Bools centric , but I no longer believe that. Nor is it true that he doesnt give the youngsters a chance. All the worthy youngsters have had their chance....some like Step have had many chances despite not really producing.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
20 Apr 2015, 05:03#72
What Ceradunce did not say and I said clearly is that the Bulls players he mentioned did in his first year included 14 of the 15 Bulls starting players. He only dropped them when they were not performing. The next thing he did not elaborate on was what the starting line-ups of the team comprised of.
What was clear that Bulls players had the inside lane on Meyer's selections and that players like Spies was favoured that way ahead of Vermeulen - whom Meyer ignored for 18 months. Meyer also tried unsuccessfully to convince to remain in the game and captained the Springboks and when he did not succeed in that turned to another Ex-Bulls player - Fourie du Preez - to captain the Springboks. At the time Du Preez was recovering from a knee injury and he according to media reports told Meyer he was unfit and could not play. It was after that that Meyer eventually asked De Villiers to take over the captaincy.
That was followed by an amazing list of Ex-Bulls being selected to play for the Bulls. As times went on that list included Bakkies Botha, Gurthro Steenkamp, Habana, Morne Steyn and Fourie du Preez. A later addition was the useless and Tight 5 destroyer Matfield. At times more than a third of Meyer's squads comprises of NH club players - the majority of those being Ex-Bulls players.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
20 Apr 2015, 05:07#73
Mozart
Can you ever make a posting on backline players without mentioning the name of Serfontein. Serfontein had some good matches for the Springboks - but those are conveniently forgotten in your hate campaign against him.
I also have reservations about him and do not rank him as the top 12 in SA - but I do not have a hate campaign against him like you do.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
20 Apr 2015, 06:32#74
That was followed by an amazing list of Ex-Bulls being selected to play for the Bulls. As times went on that list included Bakkies Botha, Gurthro Steenkamp , Habana, Morne Steyn and Fourie du Preez. A later addition was the useless and Tight 5 destroyer Matfield. At times more than a third of Meyer's squads comprises of NH club players - the majority of those being Ex-Bulls players.
And you have the nerve to talk about me mentioning Stepfonten. Moronic your brain is seriously impaired.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
20 Apr 2015, 07:06#75
I mentioned a list of players - your hate-filled impaired brain only mentioned Serfontein. Get the difference? I bet not.
20 Apr 2015, 11:29#76
Ou Maaikie, you keep on trying to dodge this bullet. I do not want lists of Bulls players listed. You implied that HM favoured Bulls players. If that was true then his teams should basically have been Bulls players with a few players from other franchises thrown in. I have just shown you the numbers iro of 2012, the year where the biggest noise was made about his Bulls favoritism. Why are you so scared to commit and give us the breakdown of players per franchise per test? Scared that you might make an uncomfortable discovery?
You also seem to have the same problem with not understanding the concept of a 23 man team. If your bench player is not give enough to start a game he should not be in the matchday 23. That is my opinion and I am sure that many good coaches, if not any good coach, would also tell you that.
