The Beast - Tendai Mtawarira

Tim Robbins

Well what a prop!
He's only 23.

Found this on youtube! Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGSWz8PYHro

sickpuppy

Jesus hes powerful and quick and still in prop terms a baby in next few years hopefully ]Healy can be as influencial as him.

Stev_o

Shows that he is really a illegal scrummager but hell if he gets away with him fair play then.

Spore

You can add the first 40 minutes of the lions game to that clip, until Vickery comes off that is...

Fair play to Adam Jones for managing to live with that

remus808

Scrummaging illegally but undetectedly is the measure of any good prop - case in point: CJ Van Der Linde!

Speaking of which, I shudder to think what would have happened in the scrum today had SA not jettisoned their 'scrummaging props': CJ, Steenkamp, Botha.. Until recentely neither Smit nor Mtawarira were regarded as particularly accomplished at the set-piece.

The beast is really good in the loose but a weakness in the scrum imo.

I dont know what was going on with Vickery but Adam Jones absolutely destroyed him in the scrum when he came on and Euan Murray did the same last time they met.

If we start with

Jenkins/Sheridan and Jones we will muller them next time.

Tomtom364

id love to see him try to outpower the bull...

Stev_o

Tomtom364 wrote: »

id love to see him try to outpower the bull...

That would take all of 2 seconds.

@Goose Jones did not the first scrummage when he came on was a pen to SA for Jones standing up.

Stev_o

Stev_o wrote: »

That would take all of 2 seconds.

@Goose Jones did not the first scrummage when he came on was a pen to SA for Jones standing up.

After that though,he bossed him I thought.

Did mears go off at the same time as Vickery?
Was Mears size part of the problem at scrum time or was it just Vickery.

Stev_o

Dash Uptight Suffix wrote: »

After that though,he bossed him I thought.

Did mears go off at the same time as Vickery?
Was Mears size part of the problem at scrum time or was it just Vickery.

Beast came off after the result try from that penalty.

The problem in the scrum was due to illegal scrummaging and a more powerful 2nd row unit pushing. Botha and Matfield simply had more strength then AWJ and POC.

Tomtom364

i ment in the loose, not in the scrum. bull is a big man to shift

anonymous_joe

Stev_o wrote: »

Beast came off after the result try from that penalty.

The problem in the scrum was due to illegal scrummaging and a more powerful 2nd row unit pushing. Botha and Matfield simply had more strength then AWJ and POC.

And it's never illegal until caught.

That ref. Argh.

Stev_o

Tomtom364 wrote: »

i ment in the loose, not in the scrum. bull is a big man to shift

There was never a problem in the loose with the Beast and Hayes doesn't do loose at all.

thomond2006

The Bull vs the Beast. :D

Tomtom364

Tomtom364 wrote: »

i ment in the loose, not in the scrum. bull is a big man to shift

Are you joking,the Beast is one of the fastest props I have ever seen.
The Bull wouldnt get close to him in the loose.

Did you see the super 14 final where he ran up the wing.

Stev_o

Dash Uptight Suffix wrote: »

Are you joking,the Beast is one of the fastest props I have ever seen.
The Bull wouldnt get close to him in the loose.

Did you see the super 14 final where he ran up the wing.

Look he's good but he's not that good by which he can play for both the Sharks and the Blue Bulls.

daveyrovers

lol

I was thinking......I thought he was a sharks player. Then thought maybe he had moved to the bulls recently or something.

Stev_o

Stev_o wrote: »

Look he's good but he's not that good by which he can play for both the Sharks and the Blue Bulls.

Sorry I was thinking of Sharks V Bulls match before that.


You know the play I mean,where he sprinted up the line and was then grabbed by a back row I think and he kept running.

Unbelievable power and pace.

2040

It was the last game before the knockout stages. It was an unreal play alright.

bigbadben

I think he's average to be honest. He's only in the team for political reasons. Cant scrum(legally), cant tackle does piss all in the tight, hits a few rucks and carries a bit to little effect and everyone gets to scream "Beast" at him, yawn.

I sometimes think when the whites in the crowd are shouting "Beast" there are racial undertones.

chupacabra

bigbadben wrote: »

I think he's average to be honest. He's only in the team for political reasons. Cant scrum(legally), cant tackle does piss all in the tight, hits a few rucks and carries a bit to little effect and everyone gets to scream "Beast" at him, yawn.

I sometimes think when the whites in the crowd are shouting "Beast" there are racial undertones.

no, no and no. He is not there for political reasons, he is there because he is one of the best looseheads in south africa at the moment. When De Villiers was appointed the job everyone thought that there was huge racially biased transformation on the way. That hasnt happened at all so huge credit goes to De Villiers for not caving into the supposed political pressure. Its a dying argument at the moment. He is there because he plays into the south african mentality and game plan, he is a physical monster who can run powerfully and ruck effectivley also his pace and power make him a formidable defender. And he is only 23 so is still only a young boy yet.

Fishtits

Ya Ya, whatever...

When Jones replaced Vicary the Lions scrum stabilised.

The "Beast" is a bloke, no more no less. He was dealt with. end of.

GymJim

bigbadben wrote: »

I think he's average to be honest. He's only in the team for political reasons. Cant scrum(legally), cant tackle does piss all in the tight, hits a few rucks and carries a bit to little effect and everyone gets to scream "Beast" at him, yawn.

I sometimes think when the whites in the crowd are shouting "Beast" there are racial undertones.

How the hell do you figure that? He is a good player, can scrummage (it's not illegal if not penalised for...pretty much like everything Quinny does for us in Munster), he is an excellent tackler and carries the ball with massive power into contact. I actually question if you've ever even seen him play.

He is picked on merit as one of the best props the boks have...if CJ, Botha, Os or Ollie were there then he wouldn't be the best they have but he certainly is from what they have to pick from. To simply say he is picked for political reasons is ridiculous and highly ignorant. Directly due to his dominance in the scrum today he essentially won 5 kickable penalties of which 4 were scored...that to me would mark him down as the Boks most effective player.

As for the racial undertones...you essentially say all the white people in the crowd are racially abusing him so?! That is a ferociously narrow-minded view of the people of South Africa and a completely unfounded suggestion. Would you also suggest then that when people compare Habana to a cheetah because of his speed this also has racist undertones? That is completely nonsensical.

remus808

chupacabra wrote: »

no, no and no. He is not there for political reasons, he is there because he is one of the best looseheads in south africa at the moment. When De Villiers was appointed the job everyone thought that there was huge racially biased transformation on the way. That hasnt happened at all so huge credit goes to De Villiers for not caving into the supposed political pressure. Its a dying argument at the moment. He is there because he plays into the south african mentality and game plan, he is a physical monster who can run powerfully and ruck effectivley also his pace and power make him a formidable defender. And he is only 23 so is still only a young boy yet.

I don't consider The Beast a quota player, but Jacobs,Mutjati,Chavanga and a couple of others were definitely included for non-rugby reasons. Jacobs isn't fit to lace the likes of Fourie's boots for starters.

Tim Robbins

karmabass wrote: »

Scrummaging illegally but undetectedly is the measure of any good prop - case in point: CJ Van Der Linde!

He keeps his bind up in most cases.

Discuss...

Stealdo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He keeps his bind up in most cases.

Discuss...

Tim - I'd be interested to hear your view of the scrums yesterday. The only thing I could see wrong with what the Beast was doing was the angle of his engagement and drive. The one time I heard the referee tell him to straighten up the next scrum was solid on both sides. If there's no issue with his angles, in my opinion the referee was right on all other calls at the scrums. But I do think there's a issue with his angles.

Size=everything

bigbadben wrote: »

I think he's average to be honest. He's only in the team for political reasons. Cant scrum(legally), cant tackle does piss all in the tight, hits a few rucks and carries a bit to little effect and everyone gets to scream "Beast" at him, yawn.

I sometimes think when the whites in the crowd are shouting "Beast" there are racial undertones.

He is one of the biggest prospects at prop in world rugby right now. Hes only 23 and just demolished English captain Vickery in a Lions test (its only illegal if you get caught) and is brilliant around the loose. Carries to little effect? what are you talking about he always makes hard yards. Racial undertones? I suppose the french are self haters when they do the same with Chabal then?

toomevara

Size=everything wrote: »

He is one of the biggest prospects at prop in world rugby right now. Hes only 23 and just demolished English captain Vickery in a Lions test (its only illegal if you get caught) and is brilliant around the loose.

He's very good, but obviously yesterdays ref, was his secret love-father, and vickery made him look very special...like to see him go up against an argie or Italian front row...By the way he looked ordinary enough once Vickery was called ashore...

Tim Robbins

Stealdo wrote: »

Tim - I'd be interested to hear your view of the scrums yesterday. The only thing I could see wrong with what the Beast was doing was the angle of his engagement and drive. The one time I heard the referee tell him to straighten up the next scrum was solid on both sides. If there's no issue with his angles, in my opinion the referee was right on all other calls at the scrums. But I do think there's a issue with his angles.

Refs look at the bind. If you haven't a good bind, it's much easier to bore in, dip and twist. Vickery did not have a good bind anytime he was pinged.

One time, the beast looked like he was dipping and twisting and should have pinged him.

I also saw the game once and it was in the pub. I'd be happy to change my view if someone can produce a better argument.

Stev_o

Fishtits wrote: »

Ya Ya, whatever...

When Jones replaced Vicary the Lions scrum stabilised.

The "Beast" is a bloke, no more no less. He was dealt with. end of.

No he wasn't first scrum when Jones came on he was pinged for the popping up and then SA scored and the Beast was subbed.

toomevara

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I also saw the game once and it was in the pub. I'd be happy to change my view if someone can produce a better argument.

Fair play...under the hips all afternoon for a start....

Tim Robbins

toomevara wrote: »

Fair play...under the hips all afternoon for a start....

It would be good if we could get some clips of the scrums and we go a bit more closely.

Here's one for you Toomevara, If one Prop is dipping but has he's bind right and the other prop isn't dipping but is making no effort to bind who do you ping?

twinytwo

Stev_o wrote: »

Beast came off after the result try from that penalty.

The problem in the scrum was due to illegal scrummaging and a more powerful 2nd row unit pushing. Botha and Matfield simply had more strength then AWJ and POC.

CAnt blame them though... fecking BAkkies is a monster

twinytwo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It would be good if we could get some clips of the scrums and we go a bit more closely.

Here's one for you Toomevara, If one Prop is dipping but has he's bind right and the other prop isn't dipping but is making no effort to bind who do you ping?

both and reset the scrum... and if they keep at it bin the two of them... but i wouldnt constantly give penos to one team

Tim Robbins

twinytwo wrote: »

both and reset the scrum... and if they keep at it bin the two of them... but i wouldnt constantly give penos to one team

Most refs prioritise the bind above the angle. The logic being if you have your bind up, it's harder to dip, bore, twist and cheat with the angle (although it's not impossible).

subfreq

While Vickery disintegrated what we couldn't see was Bismark du Plessis eating Meers alive in the middle of the scrum. Coaches got it completely wrong which is a great worry. The South African front row has been a nailed on selection before anyone stepped on the plane in Heathrow. They had an age to prepare for them so now lets hope plan B is something special.

The entire tight five was poorly selected.

God only knows what was going through Vickery's head with his binding. It was painful to watch a guy be completely disintegrated. Can't believe the coaches brought him back on in the second half.

rockman15

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Refs look at the bind. If you haven't a good bind, it's much easier to bore in, dip and twist. Vickery did not have a good bind anytime he was pinged.

One time, the beast looked like he was dipping and twisting and should have pinged him.

I also saw the game once and it was in the pub. I'd be happy to change my view if someone can produce a better argument.

there was close-up footage shown in a post match analysis of vickery's binding. from my take on it (and im not a front row player) he couldnt (a) grip the beasts shirt (b) get around his hand around the beasts massive shoulders and arms....so id imagine physics would dictate he had no purchase from which to engage his upper body in a forward movement.

personally i think the beast is a fantastic player. athleticism on such a scale is rare in the front row and should be embraced. However even watching that youtube video it highlights his temper which i think flares up all too often. particularily for the front row which is so combatitive players should be able to maintain their composure. i dont think ive ever seen the bull squaring up to anyone. id imagine it comes with maturity, but its perhaps something the lions could use to counter-act his power...have him put in the bin.

Tim Robbins

rockman15 wrote: »

there was close-up footage shown in a post match analysis of vickery's binding. from my take on it (and im not a front row player) he couldnt (a) grip the beasts shirt (b) get around his hand around the beasts massive shoulders and arms....so id imagine physics would dictate he had no purchase from which to engage his upper body in a forward movement.

personally i think the beast is a fantastic player. athleticism on such a scale is rare in the front row and should be embraced. However even watching that youtube video it highlights his temper which i think flares up all too often. particularily for the front row which is so combatitive players should be able to maintain their composure. i dont think ive ever seen the bull squaring up to anyone. id imagine it comes with maturity, but its perhaps something the lions could use to counter-act his power...have him put in the bin.

Interesting. I'd love top see the scrums again. The only thing I'd wonder about is was the initial hit on the engage too hard from the Beast and hence prevented Vickery from getting a chance to get his bind up.

Stealdo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Interesting. I'd love top see the scrums again. The only thing I'd wonder about is was the initial hit on the engage too hard from the Beast and hence prevented Vickery from getting a chance to get his bind up.

Just looking at some of it again - interestingly about 13 mins in there's one of the few scrums that looked successful while Vickery was on, and Lawrence specifically squared the SA front row after a couple of failed attempts to get them to engage. He moved the beast forward a foot or so to get them square.

d'Oracle

Stev_o wrote: »

Shows that he is really a illegal scrummager but hell if he gets away with him fair play then.

Ah ffs, what?

I see one scrum in that where there is a problem, i.e. he lost his bind.
He still kept the scrum up though, annihilating his opposite in the process.
With no bind.

The rest were just peachy.