We have had the privilage here on Rugby-Talk of an analysis of the rolls of Deon Stegmann and Francois Louw, done by McLook.
This has empted one of our Bloggers, Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar, to compile his own analysis, and because our viewpoint is one which allows differing opinions, we always give opportunity for such brilliant works to be published.
Thanks, DBK Wandelaar, here is your impressive piece:
(Side Note: Due to the width of certain Tables in the Article, increase your Screen resolution to 1440 x 900 or as close as possible to that)
A statistical comparison of Bulls openside flanker Deon Stegmann and Stormers flank Francois Louw during the 2010 Super14 season.
Deon Stegmann brings down Francois Louw
The statistics used in this article are freely available to the public from ruggastats.com, an online information portal that makes use of Verusco Technologies. Anyone is welcome to send me an e-mail at: flankstats@hotmail.com, and I will gladly send you the stats of the entire Super14 season (including stats such as minutes played and team stats as well as all calculations used) that I have compiled on the above-mentioned teams’ choice flanks:
Schalk Burger, Dewald Potgieter, Deon Stegmann and Francois Louw.
Any statistician knows that raw figures represent data and not information. In order for it to become informative, correlation and indices need to be used and patterns recognized. In a head to head comparison of the two rugby players in the title, statistically speaking, it might not seem appropriate at first for such comparisons to be made and one might stick to the old “eyeball” method in deciding which of the two seems to be a better player. The problem becomes compounded when taking into consideration that the two players don’t share an equal amount of playing-minutes, due to substitutions and bench-appearances. Furthermore, even though both are flanks, they don’t wear the same jersey numbers, and thus fulfil slightly different roles for their respective teams… different teams that don’t share equal success or coaching or temperament.
Deon Stegmann wears the number 6, and is a traditional so-called fetcher flank and opensider; which is why he packs down on the “open side” of the field at scrum time in order to break away in-field, cover defensively and operate in support of the breakdown areas. Stegmann’s compact build and low centre of gravity, core strength and speed are necessary attributes that enable him to be quick to the breakdown, (traditionally, it is said South African openside flanks have to be faster than their blindside counterparts seeing as their duty is to anticipate and be first to the breakdown in order to gain or maintain possession, to put it in simple terms), and maintain his footing and balance as he competes for the ball- since it is illegal for a player to do so of his feet. Openside flankers regularly score the highest ruck cleans and counters, as well as tackle counts for their teams; these are the players that do the donkeywork.
Francois Louw wears the number 7, traditionally a blindside, and has throughout the Super14 season been seen on that side of the scrum. He doesn’t have the pace to match Stegmann, and the coach relies on his slightly heavier frame as a ball carrier, although he is no slouch on the “deck” when it comes to his breakdown service.
Due to the strict breakdown interpretations of the Law Interpretations applied in 2010, much has been made of the limited opportunities afforded loose forwards tasked with disrupting, slowing down and stealing opposition ball at the breakdown- as all the great openside flanks such as Richie McCaw, have the capacity to do, often pushing the legal boundaries of the game and giving away a penalty or two. The new interpretations favour the attacking team or often the team with greater numbers at the breakdown. Referees have minimal tolerance in this area and expect tacklers to immediately release, roll away, and get to their feet (if having gone to ground during the tackle) and show ample “daylight” between himself and the tackled player who is still in possession of the ball, as he tries to compete before a ruck is formed. This supposedly reduces breakdown clutter and makes it much easier to maintain possession whilst building up momentum on attack, consequently producing many tries in the 2010 season. Some are of the opinion that this new approach needs refining and has dished up “basketball rugby” devoid of the traditional, entertaining breakdown scrap which requires balanced loose forward combinations… not to mention dissatisfied fans and players who often complain about 50/50 decision that are mostly awarded to the attacking side.
With this in mind, it appears teams would want to utilize tall and heavy ball carriers that they rely on to get the ball across the advantage line. Some even muse that the “small” foraging flank forward is becoming obsolete. Even though the two players, Stegmann and Louw, wear different numbers, they are being used in a similar role at their respective Unions, which make it logical to compare them and also serves to show that the “compact” flanks such as Heinrich Brussow and Stegmann can be devastatingly efficient under the new Law Interpretations, especially in a support role.
Keep in mind that Stegmann has played in all 14 A-team games (The Bulls B-team faced the Stormers A-team on the 15th of May since the Bulls were already so far ahead on the Super14 log that they could afford the luxury of an extra “bye”). Before the start of the season it was decided that Deon Stegmann would be managed correctly and play off the bench in 4 of the “easier” league matches, and to have a quality flank in Derick Kuun to fill his shoes, ensuring that the Bulls never lost momentum.
Stegmann played 773 minutes. Louw played 1140. Stegmann started 4 matches from the bench. It would be unfair to compare sum totals unless these minutes were factored-in somehow. The following 6 tables are basic comparative statistics in the categories; Defence; Contact; Handling and Errors; Penalties; Breakdown (Attack and Defence). The reader is welcome to draw his or her own conclusion, but it appears that Deon Stegmann is the more effective player in the categories provided by ruggastats.com along with indices used to compensate for the differing amount of game time more or less sufficiently. The values in bold in each column indicates which player is “better” or has a preferable stat.
Stegmann has, in total, made 123 tackles; 42 assists; missed 10. Louw, during his higher amount of game time, has made 163 tackles; 29 assists; and missed 17. Since most of Table 1’s stats are “self-referencing”, it seems that Stegmann is a better tackler overall, as well as making more tackles and assists relative to the time spent on the field. Although the player’s individual “pilfer” stats are not given, the “Forced Turnover”-column shows that Stegmann legally forced the ball from attacking players during tackles twice as much as Louw, in much less time, and almost 3 times as much when referring to tackles alone. This is very significant, and may turn a match- seeing as no team can attack and score if they don’t have the ball.
Table1. DEFENCE
| Defence | |||||||
| Player | Most Tackles in a Match | Tackle Success Rate | Tackles per Minute | Tackles + Assists per Minute | Forced Turnovers in the Tackle | Forced Turnovers per Match | Forced Turnover per Tackle |
| Stegmann, D | 21 in 65 min. (vs Blues) | 92.5% | 0.16 | 0.213 | 6 | 0.43 | 0.0489
(4.9%) |
| Louw, F | 18 in 81 min. (vs Hurricanes) | 90.5% | 0.14 | 0.168 | 3 | 0.2 | 0.0184
(1.8%) |
It is interesting to note that in many categories Schalk Burger and Louw, who’ve played side-by-side in the starting team in every game except round 3 when Burger was unable to play against the Brumbies due to injury, have similar stats. The two Stormers are coached into, and play a very similar role. Certain of their raw stats are very similar such as:
tackles made; ball carries; offloads, gain line percentage.
Louw, as a weighty 7, is expected to make an impact with ball in hand, but Burger scores more favourably than him in the carrier department. Aside from set-phases, Louw is seen to convert to an openside role and has made 35% fewer meters than Burger, although 3 times the line breaks. Burger orchestrates defences and attacks somewhat and has the ball 30% more of the time (also, due to being a lineout option and a carrier at the back of the maul), 67% more playmaker passes (though this stats may be might be a little too subjective ), 26% more passes. In line with this view is that Louw has attended the breakdown roughly 15% and 70% more on attack and defence respectively.
The application of these flank combinations is a mixture of different schools of thought from the Bulls and Stormers unions and whatever player resources are available. This Stormers duo has been intact virtually the entire season and has lost 4 games. The Bulls with their approach- using an excellent ball carrier such as Pierre Spies, and jack-of-all-trades Dewald Potgieter and Stegmann the “Silent Assassin” in a much more varied manner, have only lost half that amount of games. In one of those games Stegmann played from the bench, and in the other Craig Joubert penalized Stegmann 5 times , against the Reds and Blues repectively.
Are the Bulls twice as effective as the Stormers? No. But a loosetrio combination is one of the most exciting, most talked about and vital aspects in rugby-success. Either way, it is clear that Stegmann makes far fewer ball carries, as he doesn’t need to and when he does he makes an average of 4meters per carry in comparison with Louw’s 5.9meters.
Another important thing to note is that the stats do not distinguish whether the player classified as “carrier”, only seeks to go to ground and set up a ruck, or within a pod. Of course the goal is always to break defences and make enough meters so as to reach the tryline, but when the situation calls for it, players are often willing to go to ground quickly and have the ball recycled. Interestingly, in 8 of Stegmanns 14 game’s averages, he beats the gainline 100% of the time (more than twice the amount Louw does so: 100% in 3 games). The zeros are in games where Stegmann was basically not used as the carrier much at all and was probably from a pod or two. There’s no way to ascertain this as well as the case with the other average gain line percentages without tedious video verification, but if it were so and if it were possible at all to exclude these instances from each player, then Stegmann’s gain line success would be even higher than Louw’s.
Table 2. CONTACT
| Contact | ||||
| Player | Line Breaks per Carries | Offloads per Carries | Meters Gained per Carries | Gain Line % |
| Stegmann, D | (3/36) = 0.083
(8.3%) |
(1/36) = 0.027
(2.7%) |
(143m/36) =4m | 65.43% ** |
| Louw, F | (9/94) = 0.095
(9.5%) |
(12/94) = 0.127
(12.7%) |
(558m/94) = 5.9m | 74.60% |
Table 3 is self-explanatory and shows that the player that has enjoyed a more problem-free time on the ball is Deon Stegmann.
Table 3. HANDLING AND ERRORS
| Handling and Errors | |||||||
| Player | Passes and Handle Counts | Handling Errors | Handling Errors per Match | Handling Errors per Count
* |
Forced and Unforced Errors | Forced and Unforced Errors Per Match | Forced and Unforced Errors Per Minute |
| Stegmann, D | 35 – P101 – H/C | 8 | 0.57 | 0.079
7.9% |
7 | 0.5 | 0.009 |
| Louw, F | 98 – p184 – H/C | 21 | 1.4 | 0.114
11.4% |
13 | 0.87 | 0.0114 |
*(8/101) = 0.079
(21/184) = 0.114
Table 4 seems to indicate that Stegmann is no liability as some have criticised him of being after a Blues match in which referee Craig Joubert penalized him no less than 5 times (which is but only one penalty more than Louw’s maximum in a single game: 4). Joubert also refereed the only other game that the Bulls lost, prompting the normally diplomatic and reserved and most successful South African Super14 coach (results-wise) Frans Ludeke to exclaim that he thought that Stegmann was unfairly penalized. This area of the game has attracted much controversy and is an area where referees still strive for clarity and have to regularly defend their reputations, most notably in the Super14 final itself, ALSO involving Craig Joubert, where Stegmann was a regular menace at the breakdown- testing the laws, as a good flank should. Subsequent to Burgers’ outburst, Ruggastats have made Deon Stegmann the number 6 of the final, and Burger their 7 of the final…even though Burger doesn’t play at 7, which is a compliment to Stegmann and in accordance with our aim of rather comparing Louw and Stegmann.
According to Ruggastats, Louw was pinged (21) for infringements, more than Stegmann(19). Now it is true that Stegmann spent less time on the field, as the “Penalties per Minute” column shows. But seeing as the breakdown area, which includes the tackle for the most part, is the area where most penalties are being conceded, it seems that it is LOUW who is a greater liability than Stegmann. It is also no doubt true, that any player at any given time would be aware of the match’s current situation on the scoreboard or with regards to the flow and momentum of proceedings, as well as certain other exceptions, to be at liberty to concede a penalty or two. Overall this is very difficult to point out, but the deduction should be able to be made from common sense, that it is the Bulls who could most afford these exceptions. The Bulls have made more counter rucks and cleans than the Stormers overall. Very intersestingly, the Bulls have had more possession, with all their kicking, than the Stromers on all but three occasions, and on two of those they lost. The other was against the Crusaders in the semi final. Surprisingly, the Stormers on the other hand have only had more possession than the opposition on 4 occasions, (Cheetahs, Chiefs, Crusaders and Reds) of which they only lost one. Stats show that going into the play-offs, the Stormers were actually the team to kick the most, seemingly employing the Bulls’s old criticized boring “kick and chase” method. This could explain some of the lack of possession.
The Bulls average 52.24% and the Stormers average 48.36% possession. Perhaps the Bulls feel they have the players to not only secure the ball in the air from up-and-unders, but also the loose forwards to maintain it on the ground.
Table 4. PENALTIES
| Penalties | |||||
| Player | Penalties | Penalties per Match | Penalties per Minute | Penaties per Breakdown
* |
Penalties per Breakdown + Tackles + Assists
** |
| Stegmann, D | 19 | 1.35 | (19/773) =0.0245 | 0.044
(4.4%) |
0.032
(3.2%) |
| Louw, F | 21 | 1.4 | (21/1140) = 0.0184 | 0.0566
(5.7%) |
0.0373
(3.7%) |
*19/(297+130) = 0.044 ** 19/592 = 0.032
21/(206+165) = 0.0566 21/563 = 0.0373
Tables 5 and 6 make the role and value of each of the players crystal-clear. Deon Stegmann trumps Francois Louw in all regards, except in the slightest where Louw has been relegated to defensive duty by his team (Table 6.) and has had to make a 16.5% contribution of all defensive breakdowns from his entire team. Although once the effective “strike-rate” per match comparison is made in the final column of table 6, it can be seen that Stegmann makes himself of more use than Louw in this category too. This is so, because the Stormers’s trio seem to be sharing duties. The dirty work that Stegmann puts in, and relating it to the rest of the trio’s stats, seem to free players like Spies up to play his natural game, and has no doubt come a long way in helping Spies for a second consecutive year in being the top try-scoring forward of the Super14 and joint 4th altogether. The stats show that Stegmann has provided more support in attack than any other South African player in the top teams. He has an almost disproportionately high amount of cleanouts/attempts on his own ball rivalled by players like Phil Waugh of Australia. This is a significant cog in the Bulls machine that has seen them claim so much success the past couple of seasons. The fact that there is almost always a support player to help ensure that carriers aren’t isolated and turned over, as well as readily available for driving support is comfort and peace of mind to Stegmann’s teammates.
What makes these figures even more impressive is that ball-poachers have adapted to this seasons new Law Interpretations by hanging just off the breakdowns and waiting till the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th phases to make an attempt at the ball when there are less opposition players in support. In other words the player was actually “present” at far more breakdowns than the stats give him credit for. If breakdown problems ensued, the player was at hand to switch to plan B and provide emergency support. This was seen from all the teams. But very few have done it as well as the players compared here, and as far as the top South African teams go, none have done it as efficiently as Stegmann, according to the stats.
Table 5. BREAKDOWN (ATTACK)
| Breakdown (Attack) | |||||
| Player | OOA 1-3 on Attack | Cleanouts on own ball per Match | Cleanouts per Minute | Cleanout % of Teams Total
* |
Average % / Minute / Match in Team
** |
| Stegmann, D | 297 | 21.21 | 0.384 | 10.9% | 16% |
| Louw, F | 206 | 13.7 | 0.184 | 7.7% | 8.2% |
*(297/2727)X100 **(21.21/55)/(195/81)X100
(206/2661)X100 (13.7/76)/(177/81)X100
Table 6. BREAKDOWN (DEFENCE)
| Breakdown (Defence) | |||||
| Player | OOA 1-3 on Defence | Counter-Rucks, Attempts on Opposition Ball per Match | Counter-Rucks, Attempts on Opposition Ball per Minute | Competing or Counter Rucking % of Teams Total
* |
Average % / Minute / Match in Team
** |
| Stegmann, D | 130 | 9.3 | 0.168 | 13% | 19% |
| Louw, F | 165 | 11 | 0.144 | 16.5% | 17% |
*(130/1011)X100 **(9.3/55)/(72/81)X100
(165/997)X100 (11/76)/(66/81)X100
In conclusion it is good to remember that Louw and Stegmann have slightly different functions within the dynamics of their respective teams. If one would perhaps rather compare the stats of Stegmann to Burger seeing as they wear the same jersey number, then Stegmann would scrore even higher in the relevant categories. (Anyone is welcome to e-mail me at flankstats@hotmail.com and I will gladly send you the full stats of the flanks as well as some team stats and my calculations, as mentioned above). Burger has impressive running stats, even higher than that of Louws, but Stegmann for example scores almost triple the line breaks per carry (they are not many though); even fewer relative handling, forced and unforced errors (adapted for Burgers more time spent on the ball as and where his team feel they need him); and on breakdown duty Burger has much less of a direct impact with 176 and 50 cleans and counter on attack and defence respectively. This is mostly due to the fact that the role Burger fulfils in his team allows for Francois Louw to do most of the dirty work, hence Louw’s greater penalty count, which reminds us again why rugby fans and critics mistakenly thought that Stegmann was a penalty risk earlier this season. It is also noteworthy that Burger has a tackle efficiency of 87.5% vs. Stegmann’s 92.5% ; Burger has a total of 29 handling errors at a rate of 11.2% vs. Stegmann’s preferable 7.9%; Burgers forced and unforced error rate is also almost 1.5 times higher than Stegmann’s; and Stegmann forces turnovers 3 times as much as Burger in tackles at a rate almost 5 times higher. At the breakdown Burger’s stats are no match for Louw or Stegmann’s.
These are all great players no doubt, and perhaps all worthy of Springbok colours.
Last year saw the Springboks streak to a Tri Nations champions title with an impressive 3-0 series victory over New Zealand. During that season Heinrich Brussow, Stegmann’s 1st team Grey College schoolmate, played a notable role at 6, and forced every coach, player, aspiring player and fan to sit up and pay attention to the value of the “small”, robust, live-wire flank. It is true that this year the new Law Interpretations have been adapted. Subsequently they may have lessened the role and impact of such a player…or have they? It might appear from the stats that they have not, and in particular when considering a supporting role. According to some journalists, the Bulls are the next Super14 dynasty with 3 Super14 trophies in 4 years. They have made excellent use of Deon Stegmann’s services and refer to him as “one of their greatest assets”.
The Springboks are a very strong side that necessitates strong players in every position, so strong in fact that on occasion they might make up for any individual shortcomings or faulty game plan. But currently they are ranked 2nd in the world. Many have singled out Heinrich Brussow for due praise in his contribution to Springbok success in the previous year, many have also pointed out that Deon Stegmann, in the words of Bulls captain and Springbok vice captain, Victor Matfield: ” is the closest player to Brussow that South Africa has to offer”. But Stegmann is his own player that brings his own share of experience and attributes to the table. Interpreting these comments, it seems clear that rugby fans mean to convey that they would like the Springboks to have the breakdown threat and supportive qualities that the Bulls are being afforded at the moment. The Springboks already have Pierre Spies and Dewald Potgieter– Stegmann’s incumbent Bulls loose trio teammates.
Can’t take this article seriously. Even earlier in the season I picked up that BKW has a huge man-crush on Deon Stegmann. Fortunately for everyone who has more than one eye, FLO is the player making name for himself as a Bok, and not wannabe Stegmann. That is all there is to it.
31@ The Saint:
With this comment you are just as one-eyed as the one you accuse.
Stegmann is no wannabe, a statement like that is careless and obtuse, your Province bias and Bulls hate is showing.
That said, Francois Louw has performed very well and considering that Stegmann is young, he might get his chances later, for now there is no reason to drop Francois Louw.
Hehehe!!
DBKW, why spend all this time and effort when all that was called for was for you to claim “Maak die Bulle almal bokke!”?
GBS
I stand astounded at you calling me one-eyed for saying what I said, when the whole article above was written in obvious bias against Louw? The author of the article even went so far to say he doesn’t like Louw’s “Kaapse maniertjies” while Stegmann looked like a “egte karoo boereseun”. Suddenly McLook, who used the actual stats used by Supersport and even the Bulls themselves, seems to have been trying to cheat, for suddenly Stegmann trumps Louw on all accounts.
This is bullshit GBS, I do not hate any Bull, but DBKW can’t handle anyone except Bulls, earlier in the season his S14 form team included 14 Bulls and Habana. No-one on this site is more biased then him. What I said was fair comment given the history of DBKW, and I will be marking him from now on.
Ho hum.
If Burger stops playing then there will an argument for playing the Bulls combination.
At the moment the two WP guys and the best no 8 are more than adequate.
I am a great believer in combinations. You cant have two guys doing the same job Louw/Stegmann. so as long as Burger is incumbent Louw should be the fetcher.
Wheres Alberts going to fit in?
Theres no room for him on the Flanks and our 2nd no 8 is Kanko anyway.
Stats should be the last thing looked at, after considering attitude, combinations etc and once you check the stats and the guy is not way off the mark, then he can be a Bok.
We are blessed for loosies and it isnt an easy choice.
IE: Two alternative backrows
Louw, Spies, Burger
Potgieter, Spies, Stegmann
Kanko can slot in here at 8 too.
3rd alternative.
Alberts, Kanko, an other (Deysel/Daniel) they shouldnt get a look this year, we’ll see after the Curry Cup. For me, Daniel is too light though.
What about the Vrystaters, we’ll see after the Curry Cup where it is a straight race between them and Natal.
31@ The Saint:
The Saint wrote:
“Man-crush”?! 🙂
With Heinrich Brussow’s season-ending knee injury in the 3rd round, much was made about is short-term (or long-term) successor at the Boks. Many articles suddenly sprang up on the subject, and even Matfield was quoted saying that Stegmann is the one player in SA that is most similar to Brussow in playing-style and his role in the team.
Then recently McLook (originally from WP and a WP supporter, and claiming to support rugby-talent from anywhere in SA- as do any of us) wrote 3 short stats articles, the most recent two comparing first Burger to Stegmann, then Louw to Stegmann. The conclusions that he drew in his own words was that the WP players in each; “are by far the better player(s), and seriously good.”
This sparked my interest and when I collected the data myself from the same sources (seeing as McLook refuses to release his database and his calculations), I found that not only was McLook’s raw data in error in collection, but his calculations too AND then the conclusion he proceded to draw (this goes without saying) from that very same presentation. I also immediately informed him in the commentary of the articles that he misunderstood a few of the categories aswell, which he then attempted to correct.
Unfortunately correspondence between myself and McLook has broken down entirely.
I would have prefered to engage in an e-mail debate, in which we could defend our articles without being rushed, without spelling- and grammatical errors (which one can see in the post commentary above here, and I apologize to the reader). Our best arguments could then have been compiled and reviewed by an external moderator/arbiter, and then published. I would still very much like to do so, and the invitation is open for McLook (or challenge- however he would like to see it).
My posts 11 and 12 above are just a short criticism of McLook’s most recent two articles (rugby-talk.com/?p=13448 and rugby-talk.com/?p=13426 the links to these articles ) and why I believe that they cannot possibly serve any purpose, except to mislead the reader (or perhaps enhance his own bias, for which he and yourself are criticizing me).
I also believe that I should rather have released the article after the weekend which would have given me time to summarize and clarify many points, and bring in extra information. But then, Fender for example, claims that the article is too analytical. Here is then a short summarizing recap of the article using the exact same method as McLook used in all three his articles:
(I use every category provided by Ruggastats (despite McLook claiming I have not, anyone can verify this for themselves together with my spreadsheets). In the BREAKDOWN category I have separated it into attack and defense as together they would be too long and besides can be seen as two quite different areas of play, and certain players in the team do assume different roles during each. The stats not considered are those such as “kicking meters” for obvious reasons, and those explained on this page, as it would be pointless to have some type of “index” for “Passes per Handles Counts” etc.)
Players per each category and table:
TABLE 1. Stegmann “wins” hands down.
TABLE 2. Louw “wins” hands down.
TABLE 3. Stegmann wins hands down.
TABLE 4. Stegmann wins.
TABLE 5. Stegmann wins.
TABLE 6. Stegmann wins. (per minute- and the amount that his team has relied on him during defense when he has been on the field.)
Thus Stegmann wins 5 of the 6 categories that ruggastats provide.
Louw wins the carrying category, because this is his job at the Stormers, and hence the number on his back.
BUT, three of the categories are not up to the players role so much in the slightly different application of the two:
TACKLING; HANDLING and ERRORS; PENALTIES, as this is largely down to the players “rate” and effectiveness. Stegmann wins all three these categories.
My conclusion is that Stegmann is a better player in the role that he is used in, not least due to his efficiency within that role as compared to Louw and his. Many of the stats are averages and that is in many categories one of the best or only reasonable comparisons that can be made. The 2nd column in TABLE 1., “Most Tackles in a Match” is a type of “fun fact”, but there is sufficient explanation within the article itself on comparisons.
Stegmann hasn’t played as much as Louw has, and has started 4 games from the bench which would have a very negative effect on his averages per match. So all in all, I aimed to put forward a more detailed stats-comparison than McLook (and error-free as far as the raw data and calculations (itself) are concerned) and one can see it paints a very different picture than McLooks conclusion that: ” The [WP players] are far better…seriously good (and to be prefered (irrespective of role))”
I don’t know why Stegmann is so underrated, but I believe it would be a good idea to utilize our depth properly and “experiment” with him against weaker opposition such as the upcoming Italy tests, or on the EOTY tour or in the emerging Boks, so that in case of an emergence(or even on merit) he can be used by the Springboks straight away. But it is my opinion that he is more than good enough too be used right now in a classical loose trio, especially with Victor, Bakkies, Spies, Potgieter, (eventually Du Preez), Steyn, (perhaps Gary), and Danie there, whom are all very familiar with the Stegmann and what they can expect of him on the field. It is difficult to doubt that the Bull’s loose trio combination of Spies, Potieter and Stegmann isn’t the best in the competition, seeing as they had the ascendancy over every trio they came up against, notable and most recently the much vauted Stormers trio in the Super14 final at Orlando.
33@ fender:
fender wrote:
Because it is always better to support your claims with statistical proof. 😆
No, Whole Bulls team can’t be current Boks. (But, if Stegmann and vd Heever become Boks, the whole team will be Boks).
Most of the Boks comprise Bulls anyway. But there are far better, seriously good players out there, to use McLooks words, F Steyn, Jacque Fourie, Habana, John Smit, Bismarck, J de Villiers en ander op die bank).
So no, I do not belive the Bulls must all be Boks.
35@ 4man:
I like your second backrow combo, don’t those players all play for the same home union? I think that will be very beneficial- to have them play along side eachother the whole year, S15, incoming tour, Tri Nations, CC, EOTY tour, and finally the RWC…wouldn’t you think? Can only be beneficial for communication and how the players thoroughly understand eachother and know at each moment what to expect from one another.
Or what do you think? They seems to do better than basically any other backrow in the whole competition, wouldn’t you say?
34@ The Saint:
Anybody who recons Stegmann is a wannabe is one-eyed…. you fall solidly into that category.
Face it, your views are tainted!
34@ The Saint:
I am not sure whether I should be greatful that you are marking me from now on, but hopefully that means you will be reading and responding to my response to you @36, seeing as you have dissectected my “history” it seems too.
My short criticism of McLook’s articles are @11 and @12. Here is the links to his articles too:
rugby-talk.com/?p=13448 (Burger vs Stegmann) and
rugby-talk.com/?p=13426 (Louw vs Stegmann)
Now since you are a man that marks other men (and not shy to speak of “man-crushes…coming from WP and all :wink:) you can briefly scan over these and see whether there was anything wrong with what I said, and in comparison to the database.
So you say it is I whom have made Stegmann to “suddenly trump Louw on all accounts”.
Fristly, it is not “all account”, one 5 of the 6.
Secondly, it is not my fault that Stegmann is more effective and happens to be a Bulls player, and I, as a Bulls supporter, happened to point this out.
I’m am very happy with Louw at the Boks and with the role he is being assigned there. But it would seem from the stats at least that certain non-role-specific tasks are completed better by Stegmann than Louw. Do read.
And as your marked subject I am eagerly awaiting your response, which is only fair.
Thankyou. DBK Wandelaar.
@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar: The point I was making was about combinations, so yes, if the guys are up to scratch and they all play for the same union, then I am comfortable with that. None of those 3 backrows would disgrace us.
Potgieter was the one I was concerned about from his showing the previous round of tests, but this year in S14 and he ahs made the step up better, he has performed well for the Boks…so in my book he is ok. Stegmann, we need to know can he “make the step up”….also Kitchner seems to be battling to make the “step up”, the jury is still out on him for me. with Deysel and Kanko we know what we get, so Stegmann should get a go against Italy…(who have a decent pack) and then one can judge.
The I think that is enough new people for 1 year.
@ 4man:
Ja, there are many combinations “that would not disgrace us”. Unfortunately, there is only one correct combo at any given time, and unfortunately it is up to a handful of men to decide who it is.
If the Boks brainstrust are plumbing the depths of S14 teams, and hadning out caps so generously, then it should go without saying that Stegmann should get a callup to help us plan for the future, especially with the RWC looming next year. vdHeever should also get a chance, I have looked at his plays this year again, and I am very surprized by his calmness when scoring a try. he has got a very level head on his shoulders, and great temperament to make it on the big stage.
Seeing as we have only two experiments left before the tri nations I don’t think this will happen, and we will have to wait for the EOTY tour where a lot of the players will be rested for the RWC and then we will see interesting things, aswell as the Emerging Boks.
Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar wrote:
Unlike that Burger chap that played wing for the Free State Cheetahs a few years back. Pulling faces , doing somersaults and mocking the opponents. Someday it will come back and bite you….like it did for him.
43@ superBul:
Ja, Gerhard het wel `n tekort aan ervaring, maar ek sou hom onmiddellik in die Bok groep gegooi het. Hy het nou al gewys dat hy uit sy foute, en is puik my sy aanvallende spel. Ek kannie sien hoe hulle hom die jaar uit die gaan weglaat met die RWB wat om die draai is nie.
@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar:
moet se ek raak kwiewelrig met die baie Springbok kleure wat uitgedeel word. Onthou Peter se eerste jaar , selfde storie, die WP manne is beloon met truie en toe bleddie verloor ons teen die ABs en Wallabies later.
45@ superBul:
Ja maar Pieter het al sy ou favourites teruggebring. ek wil eers sien hoe lyk die drie nasies groep voordat ek my opinie gee, maar ek het my bedenkinge. Gerhard en Stegmann hoort in die groep. Asook Gary nodat Bismark beseer is.
Ek hoop ook dat Hougaard tyd sal kry op 9.
Mense beskulding my daarvan dat ek n eenoogige Bul is. Hoe moet ek dan nou help as Meyer al die beste spelers inkry en saam met Ludeke die die beste in die land maak? 3 S14 titels in 4 jaar teenoor die ander SA-spanne se 0 sê iets. Ek dink mos nou natuurlik nie almal hoort Bokke te wees nie, en ondersteun enige Bok van enige provinsie, maar ek is bietjie gatvol vir seleksies wat nie 100% sin maak, en sekere Bulspelers wat so misgekyk word om een of ander rede.
Of wat dink jy? Wat dink jy van die vergelyking met Louw hierbo?
46
ek het nie die artikel gelees nie, ek het n besige tydjie gehad , veral met Blouste, moer die man kan kuier. I met my match, maar wag ek kry hom weer later die maand. 😆
Kyk die kies van Louw het my aanvanklik moerig gemaak , hulle moes immers vir Steggies kies. 😀 maar hy het sy kans met albei hande aangegryp. Maar onthou ons speel nog die Micky muis spanne(ja Frankryk sonder 6 spelers is nie so wild nie) ek glo dat teen die AB’s en Australia moet die hardebaarde in wees.
47@ superBul:
Verseker so, maar Stegmann kon ook sy kans met albei hande aangegryp het. Veral met die skeidsregter wat baie by die afbreekpunt toegelaat het.
Maar ek glo dat Louw een van die bestes is in elkgeval.
Nou aangesien De Villiers Maku wil wil kies en die net wyd wil gooi, kan ons mos nou ook Stegmann n kans gee.
Ek wag om te sien of Rose gaan speel want hy het ook Vodacom Beker gespeel soos Chiliboy.
Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar wrote:
ek kry spelers soos die 2 hierbo jammer. Hulle het die potensial getoon, geteister deur beserings of soos Rose rondge-ef in n losing team. Die coach het sy nek uitgesteek met hulle en ek glo hy wil hulle graag n fair kans gee. Geduld broer geduld.
HM sou Rose n baie beter speler gemaak het , glo my. Eerstens sou hy hom in die Bulle patroon in laat groei het en dan sou hy met sy sielkunde kennis hom opgebou het tot n speler wat glo in die patroon en in homself. Kyk die knaap is heel intresant , nie jou steriotipe speler nie. Wonde of hy n comeback gaan maak. Ek gaan darem nie een wees wat humble pie gaan eet dan nie.
49@ superBul:
Nee, Chiliboy het net VC gespeel, Rose is toe deur Muir in die VC ook gesit. Dit gaan nie soveel oor vorm nie, maar die twee is van Pieter de Villiers se gunstellinge, so ek verwag om Rose ook daar te sien met die manier redenering wat toepas word om spelers te kies.
En selfs as die twee goed speel, beteken dit nie dat enigiemand nou “humble pie” hoef te eet nie- die anders spelers in die posisie doen ook mos goed, sou ook mos goeie vertonings lewer. Nou vir wat moet ons eksperimenteer om te kyk of dit nou so is of nie?
Kies die spelers op meriete aangesien daar gin kwota-beleid meer is nie, blykbaar.
@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar:
kyk ou ek is bly Gary het teruggekom hy was my gunsteling selfs voor JS ek het ure geveg vir hom. Maar die game wat ons so lief het het baie spelers wat wonderlik kan doen as hulle net die geleentheid kry. Kyk na WO, waneer hy nie rondgegooi word in die spanne nie sien jy sy potensiaal.
Vir my is hy SA se no 1, maar baie ander sal JdeJ of JdeV verkies.
Kyk na Januarie, hy speel onder die onmoontlike wolk van FDP, niemand in SA is naby FdP nie. Nou sit ons met n tweede beste/vlak skrumskakel en daar is RJ die staatmaker, hy het baie ondervinding en hy het nie die Bokke in die steek gelaat as hy moet speel nie. Maar almal wil alewig ander inbring, daar is nie n tweede FdP nie forget it
@ superBul:
te gou opgehou hierbo……
So die ding is met Chillyboy, almal is tevrede met sy game Saterdag, nou se ek jou hy kan dalk net voortbou daarop. Onthou hulle het hom by die Blou Bulle gekoop en die Bulle koop selde stront.
Gee die ou sy kans, en vergeet die kwota tag wat julle so graag om hom hang. HY pas dalk net in PdV se patroon en nie Gary nie. Ag ek veg alweer vir CR. 😀
Something i read on Rugby Heaven
During the weekend there was an impressive exposition of the worldwide popularity of rugby union, with international matches in six continents. The terrific performance suggests the Springboks will be favourites in this year’s Tri Nations.
The Springboks were helped by the eight penalties in a row awarded by the New Zealand referee Bryce Lawrence. France was correctly penalised for not allowing the tackled player to place the ball.
The “new” interpretation of the tackled ball law favours sides that play a running and handling game.
This factor was exploited by all the winning sides at the weekend.
The All Blacks scored their largest total of points ever against Ireland.
In the first 14 minutes of play, they scored 10 points. Then Jamie Heaslip was given a red card for a mad-dog use of his knees on the head of Richie McCaw. Later Ronan O’Gara was yellow-carded. With Ireland down to 13 men, the All Blacks scored 21 points. Ireland fought back to score four tries with only 14 men on the field leaving the All Blacks less than pleased afterwards.
I can’t remember a Test match in which two penalty tries were awarded against a side for collapsing scrums near their own try line, the fate of the Wallabies in their Test against England at Perth. Despite this, the Wallabies were able to score three brilliant tries, with Luke Burgess and Quade Cooper leading the way with some great running.
It seemed to me that the referee, Nigel Owens, decided that the Wallaby scrum was the culprit on every collapse, and refereed accordingly.
But several collapses occurred because the English front row did not bind properly or took the front rows to ground illegally.
Several scrum penalties should have gone against England.
England were also allowed to be in front of the kicker for the kick-offs.
They played off-side. The tackled ball law was not refereed in the “new” manner which denied the Wallabies quick phase ball.
It does not surprise me that the ARU has written in detail to the IRB’s referees co-ordinator Paddy O’Brien complaining about Owens’s performance.
Graham Henry gave his All Blacks a 7.5 rating out of 10. The Springboks would get 8.5 on this basis.
And the Wallabies a 7, bearing in mind they were prevented from playing more expansively by a referee who was as bad as England’s back play.
52@ superBul:
Ja Chili het potensiaal, ek het dit nie bevraagteken nie, maar dit rede agter die seleksies soos almal al die afgelope twee weke al oor aangaan. Wat help dit dan nou dat daar`n provinsiale A span, B span ens. is? Ek dink Chili is baie beter as Maku, en Maku is seker die BUlle se 4de keuse haker, toe dit saak gemaak net onlangs, was Derick Kuun as haker bo Chili, nou wat nou? Nou’s Gary terug, en daai man is haastig hoor! Speel na die bal toe, wen baie veld en woel soos n ou strydos.
M.a.w. is rangorde staan:
1 Gary
2 Kuun/Chili
3 Chili/Kuun
4 Maku.
Nou se ek weer, De Villiers dink ons afrigters, (en sê dit duidelik vir hulle ook) weet nie wat hulle aanvang nie. Dis niks vreemd nie. De Villiers het al die S14 afrigters beledig en daarvan beskuldig dat hulle “selfsugtig” is en spelers nie ruskans gee (en dus dalk die moontlikheid van besering hoer maak) om die resultate te verkry.
Hy’t spesiaal na Fourie verwys wat met sy seer skouer gespeel het. Maar dit was Fourie se besluit om aan te hou speel! Ek hoe beskuldig hy dan nou die ander, maar Matfield sal hy nou speel, wat meer gespeel het as enige van die ander?!
Dit maak geen sin, en S14 afrigters kannie en sal nie hulle spanne kies om suutjies-suutjies om De Villiers onthalwe, en spelers in watte toedraai. Watse onnoselheid is dit? Die nasionale afrigter kan mos nou nie ons S14 base uitskel so openlik nie!
Maar nou ja. De Villiers het `n puik record by die Bokke en ek hoop dit hou so aan en moet net dinge bietjie binne konteks neem en nie so uitvaar teen alles en almal nie.
Maku is nou verkies bo Gary. Nou watse boodskap stuur dit vir die res? Is De Villiers nou besig om spelers vir die Bokke van onder in die rangorde te kies? Maku moet dit nou maar geniet en sy kanse goed aangryp. Hoekom moes Smit voortsukkel met sy besering? Sou dit nie snaaks gelyk het as GAruy op die bank moes sit, Chili begin en by die huis is Gary die ster-haker en Chili het nie S14 gespeel nie maar VB?
Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar het Rugby-Talk gekaap!!!!!!
55@ Boerboel:
Jammer.
@ Die Blou Kuberruim Wandelaar:
Nou ja wat se ek nou verder hieroor. as ek jou rangorde by die Bulle bekyk kan ek nie juis stry nie. Wat ek wel kan se is , elke keer wat ons 4de beste haker opgekom het die seisoen het hy sy kant gebring. Hy was nou nie so besing soos die Stormers se Deon Fourie nie maar hy het sy deel bygedra dat die trofee nie op Nuweland staan nie maar op Loftus.Dus no 4 kry sy geleentheid en maak iets daarvan.
Net so is dit onder die los voorspelers in SA daar was die seisoen a magdom van goeie losvoorspelers. Ek gaan nou nie elke speler as n nommer 6,7 of 8 identifiser nie want hulle word baie keer geskommel maar kyk net hoeveel aansprakers op die 4/5 losvoorspelers in n span is daar.
Pierre Spies, Duanne Vermeulen, Kankovski, Alberts, Dewalt Potgieter, Juan Smith, Hendro Scholtz, Stegman, Kuun, Schalk Burger, Francios Louw, Pieter Louw, Wikus v Heerden, Cobus Grobbelaar, Pedrie, Botes…….. 16 spelers en ek weet ek het paar gemis. Ek weet mens kan die helfte weglaat as serious contenders maar steeds 8 goeie manne wat reeds vir SA gespeel het. Die punt is die een wat die coach gebruik , moet sy kans gebruik. Soos FL gedoen het laasweek. Nou is dit in die coach se hande wat hy met Frans maak.
Gaan hy die ou se vertroue breek deur hom te drop, gaan hy geloof in hom stel. Want die beste manier om die Springbokspan te ontspoor gaan wees om te veel kombinasies te he. Dit het nog nooit gewerk nie en gaan weer nie werk nie. Dit is sad vir baie van die 16 losvoorspelersmaar daar is net 4/5 plekke in die Bokspan.
Oor Peter de Villiers wil ek net se ek verstaan sy uitlatings in n mate. Hy hoef nie verantwoording teenoor die Unie base te doen nie, hy sien al hierdie wonderlike talent elke Saterdag en dink dalk dat die en daai speler goed in sy patroon sal pas. Nou omdat hy nie verantwoording moet doen vir sy gevoelens teenoor die Unies nie kan hy seker sy wish lists uitspreek. Maar of die S14 coaches sy uitlatings ernstig moet opneem is ook hul eie keuse. Kyk hy kan die Bulle maar kap , ek like dit, waarom so stil oor die Lions? O ja Dick Muir het die hele seisoen sy span gerus.
57@ superBul:
Eintlik waar, die spelers wat ons agterry kan volmaak is: Burger,Louw,Smith,Spies,Brussow,Deysel,Stegmann,Vermeulen,Kankowksi, Potgieter, Alberts…
Dit is eintlik al spelers wat n realistiese kans staan. De Villiers se gunstelling trio is: Spies, Smith Burger.
Die ander spelers wat vir ons die no.6 kan oorneem is Brussow en Stegmann. Botes, Kuun, Pieter Louw, Baywatch staan nie n kans nie.
Maar, as Burger `n besering of `n skorsing kry, sal hulle F Louw of Potties of self Deysel 6 toe skyf, Juan kom in Aug terug. Sonder Smith daar sal elkeen van die ook 7 volstaan.
Spies sal altyd op 8 wees as hy besering-vry kan bly. Hy het die regte houding en is by verre die beste 8.
Wanneer Juan terugkom sal hy een of twee vd bank af speel, en dan permanent die 7 oor sy kop trek.
Dus, sal ons n trio soos: Spies, Smith, Louw of Spies, Smith, Potgieter sien. Maar as een vd flanke beseer raak, sal een van die twee nuwelinge die ander se plek vat of as Juan uit is sal ons Spies, Potgieter, Louw sien.
Dit beteken Brussow of Stegmann moet ingeroep word. Nou ja die afrigter sê hy soek manne wat “the collision can dominate”. Maar Brussow het sy saak bewys, maar as Brussow nie weer top vorm kan bereik met die herstel van sy knie ligamente nie, dan is dit Stegmann wat moet ingebring word.
Nou aangesien die RWB volgende jaar afskop, is dit logies dat Stegmann nou die jaar nog tyd sal moet kry in die Bokspan en oefengroep. Of teen Italie, of op die Grand Slam toer. Selfs in die Drie Nasies as ons ver voor loop. Hy moet die jaar blootstelling kry sodat daar nie n geskarrel tydens volgende jaar se Wêreld Beker is nie, as daar n probleem ontstaan.
Onthou nou; baie spelers moet gerus word aan die einde vd jaar. En dan is daar nog die “Amper Bokkies”. Na 2011 sal daar baie spelers aftree/oorsee, en volgende jaar is nie tyd vir eksperimente nie, dus sal Stegmann die jaar so gou as moontlik `n kans moet kry, dit maak alles sin. Ek is bly ons het twee spelers soos Brussow en Stegmann.
Users Online
Total 119 users including 0 member, 119 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,446,743 Page Impressions
_