Re: Stormers v Canes
- From: Civilian <answerbook@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:05:43 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 20, 5:11 pm, Luluwazazulu <luluwazaz...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 20, 8:59 pm, Civilian <answerb...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 20, 2:38 pm, "Dave (SA)" <david.baker.sa.nospo...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Mark (newsgroups) wrote:
Civilian wrote:
Only question mark for the Stormers is if they can maintain that level
of intensity for more than 50 minutes at a time. De Villiers and
Watson were absolutely awesome in the first half, but the whole team
faded a bit in the second. Actually I don't think I've ever seen
Watson play that well against top-level opposition; he dominated at
the breakdown, in defence and attack. Kudos for getting over the farce
that was his Springbok selection.
I'm one of those that was "anti" Watson (caveat follows): Any good
player is someone I will support, however I've never, and don't think I
ever will be, someone who worships a single player above a team. Luke
Watson's biggest problem has been the fanatical, lunitical, support from
the Cape region.
He played for Natal for a couple of years and while he did well, I think
the Natal support mentality evolved in such a way that the team was
greater than the whole. I don't recall there ever being this controvery
over Luke while he was with Natal, do you?
Luke was someone that Natal embraced, liked and supported, but it never
reached the leve it's reached in the Cape. Why, I'm note sure.
Luke left Natal on a sour note, in that in the middle of the season he
decided, and announced, that we would play for Natal's biggest rivals.
Whatever you may think about professsional players, the fact remains
that they're just like you and me: those sort of things affect them, and
the team. I lost respect for Luke at that point. People said the Natal
management were unprofessional for dropping Luke, but I completel
disagree. They did what was correct for the *team*. If one of my team
mates, even at the pub level that I play, announced that they were going
to play for our rivals, I wouldn't want them in my team. I'd still have
a pint at the pub with them, but nothing to change the way people feel.
Anyway, the long winded point I'm trying to make: Luke had a disaster of
a selection to the Springbok team. This was due to politics and his
numbnuts father. This turned many people againt him, which didn't have
to be the case. The guy is a very good player. I do believe he is too
individualistic for the type of team I support, or prefer, which is why
I'm kinda glad he went to the Stormers (my teams rivals). But that suits
the Stormers, who have been a team built on supposed those type of
players for a few years now. My thoughts on that will remain my own ;)
Anyway, everyone deserves a fair chance, and when he is playing well,
and more importantly when he is helping the Stormers do well, then he
deserves the regocgnition.
Spizz, you and I have differed over this in that past, so this post is
mainly for you, so you can see where I'm coming from. If you don't get
it already, I am of the opinion that rugby teams win or lose on a team
mentality. I'm a Smit suppoter, not because he's from the Sharks, and
not because he's the best hooker in SA (he's not), but because under him
we have team. Watson seems to be forming part of a good team this year
and I will be gladly admit I'm wrong when I say that I thought he was
too much of a showboat in the past. I hope he comes right because he
certainly is one of the most talented players in SA.
Agreed. The trouble is once again, after a few good performances, the
Cape supporters are claiming Watson's automatic right to Springbok
selection because he is obviously the best.
Watson is playing damn well but so are many of the other loosies.
Look at just some of his competition
No 8 - Spies, Kanko and Vermeulen
Flankers - Burger, Smith, Botes, van Heerden (and others)
If Watson does not get picked he will not have been ripped off.
Right now SA has an embarrassment of riches in the loosie department.
I wish this extended to flyhalf and fullback.
Flyhalf?!?! What riches are you talking about? I can think of Grant,
and maybe Pienaar (if he were actually on the pitch and playing at 10)
of the current crop. Steyn has said doesn't particularly want to play
flyhalf and hasn't been playing there. Hougaard isn't an international
class flyhalf, and the Cheetahs and Lions have jokers at 10. Flyhalf
is probably the single weakest position in SA rugby.
And re: loose forwards, I agree. I would say Watson has been the
standout so far at 8, but it's incredible to think that (except for
the Lions) every team in SA has at least 2 loose forwards that are
international class. Luke would be unlucky, but not 'ripped off' to
miss out.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I guess English must be your second language, he actually said that
you don't have any riches at flyhalf>
Lew
*Splutters indignantly and slinks off into the night*
My bad, no need for the el cheapo, though.
.
- References:
- Stormers v Canes
- From: Spizz
- Re: Stormers v Canes
- From: Civilian
- Re: Stormers v Canes
- From: Mark (newsgroups)
- Re: Stormers v Canes
- From: Dave (SA)
- Re: Stormers v Canes
- From: Civilian
- Re: Stormers v Canes
- From: Luluwazazulu
- Stormers v Canes
- Prev by Date: Re: If you were Dan Carter....
- Next by Date: Re: New England Captain
- Previous by thread: Re: Stormers v Canes
- Next by thread: Re: Stormers v Canes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|