” I have nothing…….as you are the one who starts the personal attack everytime. I simply respond.”

YOUR words, BOLD but totally DISHONEST when judged against my post #665 and your responding post #671(snide, insulting).

Talk on, just DO SO. But my case is CLOSED with YOUR DISHONEST WORDS.

Your own words everytime you posts especially during buddy-time hangs you time after time.

I challenged you 3 weeks ago and again yesterday to be honest and to admit your being catergorical wrt to some rugby things and you dish out the same medicine that you cannot handle( your post 671), snide and seemingly sarcastic remarks. The ball is in your court now as you need to challenge the facts or admit being incorrect when it suits you, if you do not wish to come across as being ridiculous.
But if you wish just speak on and on and on.
DONE

Egg, just egg and I really like egg (especially omelette) but not RAW and not on tha FACE. And that is what this eventually all is: EGG on YOUR FACE.

Stick to the tighthead technicalities, it is, as said previously, sometimes informative.

Post #672 is a powder puff, harmless, civil response with no lies or words put inany mouth as you so claim. My this shows you have to be extremely sensitve as all that is being done is a smart turning of the tables here. You are merely being administered your own medicine, but with civility and with smartness and you cannot respond to it and less even handle it.

Talk on please do.

That is exactly the point I made today, mostly, and also more than 3 weeks ago when I put Watson’s 20 mins. at Carisbrook into total perspective. His response that day, a few posts later, was sublimely categorical and even when I civilly challenged him to admit it was totally false wrt to that post that day.

Yesterday we had a similar situation. My post #665 is purely on the merits or lack thereof, in my estimation, in certain positions which agin I think devalues the Boks effort this Saturday. His response in post# 671 is a snide, sarcastic effort as if the rugby deity has spoken.
It is time for him to realise ther are many grey areas in all of life.
On a more pleasant note what is your take on this starting XV?

The more you talk the more you ridicule yourself and no one does a hatchet job on you better than yourself. Case in point, look at your response to the Keo comment, as I jokingly predicted you go over the top. I do not even think Keo was being serious and was just having some fun more than anything else, but then again your warped reaction.It is purely that ego, believe me there is no rugby deity anywhere on this planet.

Typical dom donder ignorant, verkrampte South African attitude……”if you don’t agree with me then you must be wrong”…….”ag kak man”.

Thick, arrogant, small minded South African.

I just saw the skirmish between you and ET and Keo’s assessment.

I agree with Keo that you came off second best. Although you know your subject, you are mostly too categorical in your approach and do not seem to realise that issues are not always either white or black but that there are grey areas as well.

To attack Keo’s rugby opinion as well because he has “voted” against you is not going to do your case any good.

Agree overall with that perception of yours in that post and it requires brainwork.

How could I forget my favourite, Skinstad, who I actually mentioned in post #665? But I am sure you will accept that Bob was far more about brain than brawn and exceptionally skilful. The most skilful forward I have ever been exposed to.

Agree with you also on the importance of the mentality component. For me most sport is about 45% ability, 45% psychology/mental and the rest is the remaining 10%.

The point that I am trying to make is that it is not body type that counts (although it helps to be bigger), but the mentality of the players. A smaller team (within limits) can use team work and gang tackling to make up for lack of size. But only if they are mentally right. But a stupid team can only play one game. And a team of specialist body sizes without the right mentality can’t change from their plan A. The right team to select is one that has the physiology to go toe to toe in the tough stuff, but the ability to change to plan B if the first one is not working. Even better, to be able to siultaneously recognise without being told that the plan must change.

We as S.Africans have an obsessioin with size/brawn etc. and I see you mention ‘big and fast’ but not skill. How many great rugby players are big and fast and skilful? A very small percentage and I cannot readily think of any/many other than say Eales and he was not really big but very skilful for his size Remember, it is textbook knowledge that the physiological male is a 70 kg individual so anyone who is 100kg. or more, is really abnormal wrt. mass. How often in your life have you heard the term ‘big and clumsy’ but small and fast or small and bouncy(a low centre of gravity). You simply do not get big, fast and skilful often even and espcially in S.A. with its not so good nutrition regimen.

The ideal team should be able to play the 9-man, 10-man, 12-man or 15-man rugby game anytime the need demands but how often do you see that. I personally can only think about the 1974 Br. Lions and maybe that 95-96 NZ that can play to any such broad plan/s.

The ideal team would have every member complementing the other 14 all the time and how often have we or will we see that. I don’t know that answer.

All of this is just some food for thought.

The fact is that of course I hope the Bokke slaughter the ABs and that Adi (and everyone else) does well.

But mostly I want to make the point that what counts for me is excellence, not skin colour. I believe, and I’ve posted it many times before, that Beast is the best prospect we’ve had since Os, and that Habana is the best wing I’ve ever seen. The others mostly hold their own, but are capable of feats of brilliance at any given time.

Finally, to be brutally honest, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if the entire team was black or coloured and without a single white player, provided and only provided that they were the best we have. I hope that this is unambiguously clear.

I am a South African and I have always supported South Africa. I want us to win. I want all the black and brown and white kids to have an equal opportunity, even if it means raising taxes to achieve the result. In education, in sport, in their nutrition. That’s it.

I believe that a team shouls have the skills to up the ante when it matters, and the power to play that kind of game when it is required. You can never be the best at all types of play all the time. Perhaps you need to be teh best at conservative, defensicve rugby at the beginning of the game to allow a team like Oz to wear themselves out, and then be able to work it wide towards the end, when they are out of gas. Itis not a cut pattern that is required, but a recognition of when to use what style, where the oppositions weak points are, and how to make the current situation work for you.

This attitude is explained in the “Book of Five Rings” by Miyamoto – the greatest swordsman that ever lived, who remained undefeated until his death at a ripe old age. He says he does not prefer this style or that style, or this sword or that sword. He thinks that they all have a part to play at a point where they can be used to be most effective. And whatever you have, you use in a way that can be most effective. eg If you have a short sword, force the enemy into close quarters where they can’t use their long sword, or where its less effective. So you dont use Luke for 10 man rugby.

We have the athletes (big and fast) to play either type of game, and any mixture of these. What we need is the recognition of when one type of game will be more effective. eg against Oz, we should have reverted to conservative, field position rugby based on set pieces when our running game plan was being out played by the Aussies. It is stupid to do the same thing time and again and expect a different result. Unless the mere changing of time has caused a different situation.

Gavin Rich’s latest column is quite good (although I also think he doesn’t quite get what I have explained above).