Super Rugby player ratings: Round 18

True, I was just curious, having unfortunately missed a lot of games due to time restrictions, on who wasn't performing well in Super Rugby.

Okay, I should give more detail: “Mike you lack any evidence that Robinson has been a good scrummager this year.” Oh please Peter – tarring others with the brush that applies squarely to you! You have rarely cited any evidence for your opinions about Robinson, and it has only been of the vaguest kind. This last post is a classic – full of the most vague motherhood statements. “The fact is most penalties against the tahs scrum have been against Robinson specifically.” No they have not. You need to watch the scums. “The rest of penalties can be laid at his feet.”” No they can’t. [Is this a general response - of course! It matches the comment to which it responds] “Also play the ball and not the man you abusing me does not add any weight to your arguments.” I have never abused you, Peter. You seem to think that repeatedly making unsubstantiated assertions supports your case, i.e. if you repeat enough times "Robinson is a bad scrummager" that repetition alone will carry the day. When your posts on this topic consist of comments like: “Robinson does not, he folds like a deck chair”, then the only appropriate response is, “You do not know what you are talking about”. Put some content in your arguments, and you will get better responses, from me and from others. The same goes for statements like “Fact is he was penalised multiple times.” – NO player was penalised multiple times. Scrum penalties are rarely awarded against particular players, even props, and its not abusing you to point this out. Since you have been told this numerous times on many threads, but you just keep on without even apparently being aware of the issue, then the frustration of other posters is understandable.

Tarring others with your own brush Peter? And how "abusing"?

"Sorry Mike but by definition “overall they had the best of the encounters” classifies as being dominated." Sorry Hoges, but by definition that is exactly what it does not mean. Back to school for this one. "Holmes has had the “overall best of the encounters” for every team he has faced since coming back from injury in the early rounds." No he hasn't. Yet again, we see more Australians making myths about their players - apparently we can't cope without marvel comic book heroes . Firstly, let me explain something basic to you: scrummaging is done by 8 men, as a pack. It is very rare that any single player "has the best of encounters", occasionally it happens in scrummaging, but very rarely. The all-too-common Australian obsession with seeing scrummaging as purely a matter of which front-rowers are selected simply reflects lack of knowledge of the art. Secondly, I am of course on record as frequently praising Holmes this season and recommending that he be included in the test team. But that was NOT based on any concept of him personally "having the best of encounters" or other myths that bear no relation to the reality of scrummaging. And no, he hasn't always performed well, this season, nor have the Queensland pack. But overall they have done pretty well. "The Tahs certainly came back – because both Slipper and Holmes were replaced with two first year rookies from the NRC and Faingaa." No it wasn't. The Tahs scrum was doing well before half time, let alone as late as you are discussing. In fact, they were doing well from the start - inept refereeing is not their fault - and they adjusted better than the Queensland pack, which is an important skill in itself. "As PeterK said – Robinson folds like a deck chair ..." I have so far seen no reason to think that Peter K has any real comprehension of scrums. "And as the ref has the final say – any error is reality…. oh, and does change the result." Firstly, the fact that it changes the result is something I said - so don't try to twist my words. Secondly, in context, your assertion that "any error is reality" is wrong: If a referee pings a player or a pack incorrectly, that does not prove that he or they are bad players, it just proves that the referee got it wrong. Good for the Queensland pack that they got a couple of decisions in their favour that they shouldn't have, but it doesn't entitle them to say that they are good scrummagers for that reason. As it happens, I believe that the Queensland pack are good scrummagers, but for rational reasons, not because of a couple of dodgy ref calls, as you do.

"yes reds bored in, I saw it and made a comment on it at the time." Yes you did, so don't try to wriggle out of it. You also admitted that both of those penalties should have gone against the Reds, so don't try to wriggle out of that either. "Point is this is a common illegality that refs ignore / get wrong." No, that's not the point. The point is that Holmes and the Reds pack were fortunate enough to get away with an illegality, but that does not give them the right to be called good scrummagers as a result. "The better props overcome it. Robinson does not, he folds like a deck chair." On the contrary, Robinson does overcome it regularly and did come back in this game. That shows class. And no, he does not "fold like a deck chair". You are simply shooting down your own credibility with comments like that. "Fact is he was penalised multiple times." No he wasn't. Firstly, you repeatedly make this error of thinking that the scrum only consists of the three men at the front of it. You have been corrected again and again, but you can't grasp the point so you just don't learn. Scrummaging is done by 8 men, a pack, and it is very rarely that one player earns a penalty. Secondly, the mere fact that a penalty is given, and obviously incorrectly, does not justify your sweeping and irrational dismissal of certain players. "Just not good enough." I agree, you aren't! Until you learn how scrums work, ALL of your points given for forwards based on scrummaging will lack credibility.

Sorry Mike but by definition "overall they had the best of the encounters" classifies as being dominated. Holmes has had the "overall best of the encounters" for every team he has faced since coming back from injury in the early rounds. The Tahs certainly came back - because both Slipper and Holmes were replaced with two first year rookies from the NRC and Faingaa. As PeterK said - Robinson folds like a deck chair and the Tahs scrum doesn't appear to be getting better toward the end of the season. And as the ref has the final say - any error is reality.... oh, and does change the result.

Peter, Having been at the WaratahsvReds game I wonder at some of your picks. Surely not just on the stats, as they really don't tell the full story. Your analysis was spot on regarding set piece dominance for the Reds - so how then does the Waratah front row get 7.5? Surely they needed to be severely docked for not delivering on their core responsibility? Including the stuffing up of the "tricky" front of the lineout throw.... Best game I had seen Palu play in a long time. Mumm was on for a millisecond and was largely anonymous..... he gets the same as Skelton who is slowly earning the reputation he didn't earn last year. Gill was the superb in the first half but eventually got double teamed by the Waratahs. Phipps can't pass accurately - even in the first few minutes the ball was all over the place My ratings: Reds G. Holmes 8.5/10 (kept the Reds in the game) J. Horwill 5/10 (did his job - nothing else) L. Gill 7.5/10 K. Hunt 7.5/10 (kept Naiyaravoro quieter than I thought he would) For the record - Genia, Cooper, Kerevi, Simmons, Turner, Slipper, Hanson would all only get 5 - did their jobs but not enough to change their fortune. Thomson gets a 4 great effort but 10 minutes on the naughty chair doesn't help.. O'Connor, Schatz, Kuridrani and the bench were simply baggage. Waratahs S. Kepu 6/10 (great cover defender..... but he is a prop first) T. Polotau-Nau 6/10 (good return, poor throwing, scrum got schooled). W. Skelton 6.5/10 (maybe a 7 - did his job, well I will grant you, but simply did his job) D. Dennis 7.5/10 (yep - actually used his weight well) W. Palu 9/10 (MOM - showed his class) T. Naiyaravoro 8/10 (some excellent runs - lay over the ball and made sure no counter rucking was going to happen out wide). I. Folau 8/10 (impressive as usual) Phipps 2

"The Reds dominated the scrum via Holmes demolishing Robinson." This is not remotely true. It is predictable, in that Peter had locked himself into this position long before the game started, but simply fantasy. And its wrong on several levels, firstly because the Reds scrum didn't dominate the Tahs', although overall they had the best of the encounters, secondly because nobody was demolished at all, thirdly because one player rarely makes the difference in scrummagingm and finally because the scrum victories that the Reds gained early on in the game were because they were boring in quite blatantly and the ref didn't know enough to pick it. Referee errors can't change the result of course, the penalties lie where they are given, but the errors do not thereby become reality. As it happened, the Tahs scrum adjusted to the, shall we say, rather unusual reffing, and the Reds scrum lost their early edge.

Your kidding Baldy. AAC to take care of the 1/2 time oranges. If he is selected it should be behind JOC, who will only make it on name and promises by the ARU (same case for KMH). On the past 5 weeks performances you would have to choose Greg Holmes as prop. Slipper the other and Moore hooker. Yes Skelton has done enough at SR level. He should sit with Simmons (although Simmons was ordinary on Saturday). Pocock 1st choice flanker with McCalam no 8. (Palu doesn't play well at test level). I would have Gill or Fardy as other flanker. Half is Genia. Fly Foley I/C Toomua O/C: ?? wings: Toomani and Speight F/back: Folau

PeterK, was wondering if when you release the Form teams, would it be too much effort to make the same out-of-form teams? Not sure how much data you've been collecting, but could you do the same in reverse? (Lower scores instead of higher scores) I think it might be interesting to see who the Roarers rated as the worst players over the season.

I leave the lesser teams to experts like you Harry, as you show in your discernment re DP and MH. I give KB 10.0 for the way he sat in the stand. Didn't much notice Gill, except when some try-scoring Tah made a fool of him near the end.

Wasn't sure on Veaniu. Can't believe the Rebels haven't used him more this season, especially after he was so impressive in the NRC last year. Brache is SA, but has he been in Australia long enough to qualify for us? Is he trying to? I know he's been here a few years now.

The only certainties in a run on side who are fit at this time would be - Alo Emile / Sio, Moore & Slipper Skelton & ? Palu / Hooper & ? Phipps AAC Speight Folau The rest - good luck selectors.

Only Tahs rated. Is that because your other eye is closed or you only watch boys in Blue. Suprised you did not try to justify an 8 point game by Beale. For what it is worth, I thought Hooper had a better game than Pocock for first time this year. And Gill certainly had a good game again.

Pocock was excellent for his time on the field, but I couldn't rate him higher than 7.5 because only 40 minutes. The same is true with Palu. He was probably the best player on the ground for mine while he was out there, but only 50 minutes. If he kept that up for 70-80, I would have rated him 9 like some others.