Peter de Villiers, Yay or Nah?

[Devill]

Fair enough, and no I won't dispute it, but it doesn't make it any more or less of an achievement, in my opinion.



Have we forgotten all the way back to Saturday where Frans Steyn actually did play? This tells me de Villiers realised his mistake and realised he may not be able to win this thing without Frans Steyn?

Never said Frans was worse than pienaar, and im sure neither did PDV but at the end of year tour he needs a fullback so while he could experiment he did... Funny how Jake White did that same thing a lot yet you think the world of him....

My personal opinion is JW was great to get bok rugby to adapt the right structures, but PDV is a better coach.

Also funny how you forget some of JW's greatest players he "found" played for devilliers first

 

[semiautomatix]

Kitch had it easier. Its hard not calling you insane, when you post comments like this.

Easier how? He didn't have all the support staff, including coaches and professionals, including the medical team. He didn't have a professional body backing him up. He didn't have the financing. He had to work with players that couldn't dedicate every minute of every day to the sport. He didn't have other professional teams to pick his players from.

Now, if you're done name calling, could you respond in a calm and mature manner because you are failing to make any sort of argument?

Edit: notice how I didn't just retort that "de Villiers had it easier"; I actually made some valid points disputing your point of view.

 

[semiautomatix]

Never said Frans was worse than pienaar, and im sure neither did PDV but at the end of year tour he needs a fullback so while he could experiment he did... Funny how Jake White did that same thing a lot yet you think the world of him....

Didn't I just say that all coaches make mistakes? I also mentioned that it isn't always the worst thing in the world? It applies to both men.

My personal opinion is JW was great to get bok rugby to adapt the right structures, but PDV is a better coach.

Also funny how you forget some of JW's greatest players he "found" played for devilliers first

In the last 2 years players would have retired and de Villiers would need to have replaced them. Unfortunately this doesn't form the foundation of the team, when that time comes perhaps he will be given the chance to show that he is up to the level of Jake White, in that respect. Until then he is a decent coach with a brilliant team.

 

[Cantera]

timgaul, as i said - it is hard not insulting you based on the arguement you present.

Kitch had it easier than today's coaches. I feel i do not need to explain myself, if you cannot grasp Kitch having it easier then i truely believe there is no merit in debating with you over the matter.

You must be the only person on planet rugby who actually believes that Kitch had it more difficult than the coaches of today.

 

[Morgoth]

I rest my case with the arguing for the sake of argument comment.

 

[semiautomatix]

timgaul, as i said - it is hard not insulting you based on the arguement you present.

I could well say the same thing about you, but notice how I don't resort to base name calling to try and force my opinion on others? When you resort to name calling you lose any credibility you may have. I notice you do so to anybody else who disagrees with your point, I'm just giving you a heads about acting in a more mature manner if you expect to receive any respect for your arguments.

Kitch had it easier than today's coaches. I feel i do not need to explain myself, if you cannot grasp Kitch having it easier then i truely believe there is no merit in debating with you over the matter.

You must be the only person on planet rugby who actually believes that Kitch had it more difficult than the coaches of today.

Ha! You don't feel you need to explain it? Or you can't explain it?

If you are unwilling to debate your point then you are already on the back foot. You argument lacks any sort of credibility since you can't even refute the simplest of accusations. Well done, you just lost your point of view on the de Villiers/Christie debate.

 

[semiautomatix]

I rest my case with the arguing for the sake of argument comment.

I just gave a whole host of points as to why de Villiers has it easier, yet this is the only response you are able to conjure.

You make no point to support your opinion, yet you claim I'm merely arguing for the point of arguing? You posts are absolutely baseless, at this point, and merely some sort of personal rant.

Try back up your opinions, or they will remain just that, you own personal opinions that are completely unjustified.

Now would you care to refute any of the points I have made, or will you concede you have no argument?

 

[Cantera]

timgaul, believe what you may. I have seen how you leave bait for users to take. I refuse to get into a debate with you regarding Kitch.

I am not on the backfoot and in fact i dont really care to explain to you why i think Kitch had it easier.

You need to wake up mate.

 

[Devill]

Didn't I just say that all coaches make mistakes? I also mentioned that it isn't always the worst thing in the world? It applies to both men.



In the last 2 years players would have retired and de Villiers would need to have replaced them. Unfortunately this doesn't form the foundation of the team, when that time comes perhaps he will be given the chance to show that he is up to the level of Jake White, in that respect. Until then he is a decent coach with a brilliant team.

Lol, ill take that from you and say nice chatting to you

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Person A likes PdV
Person B doesn't because Person B likes someone else


Why does it degenerate into idiocy and forcing of opinions ffs.

 

[Cantera]

Lol, ill take that from you and say nice chatting to you

EXACTLY!!!

Whats the point debating with him

 

[Morgoth]

I just gave a whole host of points as to why de Villiers has it easier, yet this is the only response you are able to conjure.

You make no point to support your opinion, yet you claim I'm merely arguing for the point of arguing? You posts are absolutely baseless, at this point, and merely some sort of personal rant.

Try back up your opinions, or they will remain just that, you own personal opinions that are completely unjustified.

Now would you care to refute any of the points I have made, or will you concede you have no argument?

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/facepalm.jpg

 

[semiautomatix]

timgaul, believe what you may. I have seen how you leave bait for users to take. I refuse to get into a debate with you regarding Kitch.

I am not on the backfoot and in fact i dont really care to explain to you why i think Kitch had it easier.

You need to wake up mate.

If we all claimed, on this forum, that we don't need to explain ourselves there would be no discussion.

Now please explain to me, how me politely requesting you answer several points I have made is in any way baiting. I have made my points, which are perfectly logical, do you have a response?

If not then I would have to assume, by default, you are merely stalling and have no actual response. If this is the case then perhaps you should consider that your point of view may not be as black and white as you would have it.

 

[semiautomatix]

EXACTLY!!!

Whats the point debating with him

You give no response to my questions, and just sling names around the forum. That is why we can't debate. If you'll review your previous posts you'll notice a good 25% of what you post is mud slinging.

But Cantera at a hefty 327 posts, I wouldn't expect you to know better. As such, I'm giving you advice: stop with the name-calling and "I don't have to explain myself to you!" because it will result in a very short stay on this forum.

 

[semiautomatix]

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/facepalm.jpg

A mature response I would expect from you.

Are you honestly telling me you can't tell me why the professional-era is more difficult to coach for than the amateur-era? Honestly, are you going to tell me it just is because it is?

 

[Morgoth]

A mature response I would expect from you.

Are you honestly telling me you can't tell me why the professional-era is more difficult to coach for than the amateur-era? Honestly, are you going to tell me it just is because it is?

I said its a different area and should be looked at differently....including the transformation areas as they are still 'amateur' if you couldn't get that then I don't know,

why do you think they normally show statistics after 95 and before 95 in rugby? or why do you think Buurman van Zyl isn't compared with someone such as Frans Ludike or heneky Meyer for example ( from a bulls pov), its like comparing squash to tennis.

now go on quoting me 10 times , how your 'opinion ( so called facts)' are better and then insisting its still a debate....

 

[semiautomatix]

I said its a different area and should be looked at differently....including the transformation areas as they are still 'amateur' if you couldn't get that then I don't know,

why do you think they normally show statistics after 95 and before 95 in rugby? or why do you think Buurman van Zyl isn't compared with someone such as Frans Ludike or heneky Meyer for example ( from a bulls pov), its like comparing squash to tennis.

That wasn't really what I was asking, but at least you're putting forward some good points, which is a start. What I would like to know is why (you believe) the two eras are so vastly different. I understand the support structures, in each era, as I have mentioned. But please explain how game tactics, choosing the right players and the general understanding of rugby differ at all when you're out there on the field? If there is such a vast difference why have three teams dominated international rugby for the last 30 years in both eras?

 

[semiautomatix]

now go on quoting me 10 times , how your 'opinion ( so called facts)' are better and then insisting its still a debate....

Now, I fail to understand how a comment such as "Christie didn't have players dedicated to the game 100% of the time to work with" is my, how did you say, "opinion ( so called facts)" when it is clearly the truth? Surely this would make it more difficult to coach?

 

[sand_man]

Amateur vs professional is a mute point surely. The game was essentially amateur throughout the world prior to the 95 world cup. Post 95 world cup the sport turned pro here and abroad.

Pre 95 everyone was competing on similar grounds...

So winning 14/14 pre 95 or 17/17 post 95 should be irrelevant.

If you're Uruguay and you won 16/16 post 95 then that's an achievement as even today Uruguay (as well as many other minnows) are effectively still amateur.

 

[semiautomatix]

Amateur vs professional is a mute point surely. The game was essentially amateur throughout the world prior to the 95 world cup. Post 95 world cup the sport turned pro here and abroad.

Pre 95 everyone was competing on similar grounds...

However, even then three teams dominated. They continue to do so in the so-called "professional era". Which is why I question whether their differences make such a big impact in the greater scheme of that game.

EDIT: okay as far as the big 11 or so-ish professional countries are concerned.