MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
03 Nov 2015, 16:04#1
Versus NZ
Without Victor....NZ 20/Boks 15
With Victor....NZ 0/Boks 3
Versus Bargies
Without Victor... Bargie 7/Boks 0
With Victor .....Bargie 6/Boks 24
Coincidence ....maybe. But it's hard to argue, as so many did, that Victor's presence coincides with a drop in Bok effectiveness. His value as a thinking forward, with a great pass and a sense of the field was heavily underlined in the Bargie game. When Lomp replaced Victor we went from an expansive game to mindless bashing.
And then there was Lomp's role in the Bargie try.
03 Nov 2015, 16:21#2
Boks vs Japan
With Victor......................
LOL! v
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Nov 2015, 18:28#4
Victor was BS - where did you find those matches? Remember the following woith Matfield over the 14 months:-
Against New Zealand
Loss 14 - 10 after Matfield buggered up a line out throw.Win 27-26 - after a desperate effort by Matfield to lose the game by buggering up a line \- out. Saved by a Lambie long distance penalty.
Against Australia
Loss 24 - 23 win 28-10Loss 24-20
Matfield record in tests were atrocious. SA won only of the 12 games he played in. Two of those wins (England and the AB's) took place despite a desperate effort by Matfield to lose the games by totally inadequate play.
Dave is right the man was BS this past 14 months.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Nov 2015, 06:44#5
No controlled experiment there BLOO ......can you work out why?
04 Nov 2015, 09:03#6
Moz, not sure whether you are referring to the game being a controlled experiment, or your comment being one, but it does not matter, because if you couldn't figure out that my comment was tongue in cheek...well, then it doesn't matter!
Just for clarity, I think the fact that Victor was playing made no difference to the result against Japan! The Boks as a team simply underestimated them, and by the time they had figured out that they had been outsmarted, the Japanese fans were already celebrating!
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
04 Nov 2015, 12:05#7
I don't think anyone but the terminally stupid Baboon-ou would dispute that Victor Matfield was a great player in his day and would certainly have been a key player whenever he played against the All Blacks.
The main argument against Matfield at this RWC was that he was way past his best and the stats that have been put up on this thread don't address that key issue at all. The author really hasn't thought this one through. Fact is, the Springboks have lost 100% of the test matches they've played against the All Blacks where Matfield was beyond his sell-by-date.
Just another example of Moffie choosing stats that suit his stupid little agendas against players and using them selectively to prove nothing other than the fact that he doesn't understand statistics or how they should be applied.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Nov 2015, 16:21#8
Mine was tongue in cheek as well Bloo. What I think is Etzebeth and Lomp are the same player....except Etzebeth is better than Lomp. Playing them together is too much of a good thing. We were more creative against the Bargies when Matfield added another dimension. He is, by the way, by far the most reliable tackler of the three locks.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
04 Nov 2015, 19:21#9
Translation: "I've got so much egg dribbling down my fat face, I'd better pretend my comments were tongue-in-cheek . . . although I bet that darned Rooinek will point out that my tongue is more often in someone's butt-cheek than my own cheek."
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Nov 2015, 06:35#10
Matfield consisted of what? Maybe standing around in the backlkine? What good thing did he bring on against the AB's in the semi - playing like an absolute idiot and rank incompetent?
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Nov 2015, 04:48#11
There's an old lush yapping at me all over the Board. Poor obsessive old coot.
As for moonlighting Pervert, Lomp is your man...he moonlighted while Bargie scored.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Nov 2015, 09:35#14
Mozqart
Du Toit had limited opportunities - very limited indeed and was used as a loosie - not as a lock - which is his natural position - in one game. Where he was used from the bench as a lock he was far better than Matfield was. Matfield was - as was the case over the last 14 months - a disaster for the Springboks losing 6 of the 12 matches he played in as a starting lock in the period before the WC.
However, this thread is a desperate attempt by you to glorify Matfield and denigrate other players, However, it failed badly on both sides - so please accept that your hero was a failure when he returned to play test rugby after retiring in 2011. Matter of fact he did his utmost to harm his top reputation of the past in returning to play rugby way past h is sell-by date. .
