Clever Mike.....I can't find your analysis

Matfield biggest issue is that he is not able to assert himself physically.......he gets owned in contact.......pretty feeble is the old fart......we might as well have a girl playing lock for the Boks   

 Mozart
All the tackles were weak and the players had no problem with retatning the ball and carrying on with the attack.
The further problem that became clear was that Matfield never went into mauls to try and assist in recover ing of the ball - he was standing around behind the mauls doing bugger all - leaving the hard grind to other players.  We in fact had two of those - Matfield and Alberts.  They try and catch the eye with ball carries - but even there they were both weak last Saturday.   In the one case where Matfield was penalized the issue is he went down and not forward - wit the result that he had to hang onto the ball - there would have been an easy turnover otherwise.  
Saffex is right - the bugger is doing the absolute minimum and getting away with it.
By the way I am not disputing the 10 tackles he made - I am just commenting on the nature of the tackles.  All Players went forward in the tackles.   T^he time is not an issue - the number of tackles is not an issue - what is an issue is the nature and effectiveness of the tackles.  None was really effective and even important. 

 "The further problem that became clear was that Matfield never went into mauls to try and assist in recovering of the ball - he was standing around behind the mauls doing bugger all - leaving the hard grind to other players.  We in fact had two of those - Matfield and Alberts.  They try and catch the eye with ball carries - but even there they were both weak last Saturday.   In the one case where Matfield was penalized the issue is he went down and not forward - wit the result that he had to hang onto the ball - there would have been an easy turnover otherwise."

All just bullshit opinions with no substance. Is there any reason in particular why you are back pedalling from your chest beating promise to do a comprehensive analysis, with the necessary timestamps, to prove your point about Matfield's poor defence, compared to the defending play of his team mates?

The timestamps is essential and of major importance because that would enable us to compare your allegations with the real incidents during the game. Unless we get that analysis, as promised, your allegations will remain just that. Bullshit allegations without any substance. If you are happy for it to remain as such, then I am happy and would gladly accept it.

I say you and Dave are talking pure balls. Show us the tackles with time stamps. You have to love phrases like owned in contact. This is the kind of junk primary school coaches sprout the days.  

 Moz: you always get CleverMike to do all the work to disprove your conjecture / speculation/ baiting, lol I don't see you compiling data, etc

 Mozart
You refuse to look objectively at what Matfield does and does not do.   Make general statements - but there was not a single tackle made by Matfield which resulted in an opposition loss of ball possession.   You would call it process tackles in the case of players you do not like.   
For one thing - the fact that he does not enter mauls to assist in recovery of balls indicate a deficient work rate.   Fact is he is still moonlighting in the backline - but now actually nearer maul situations.
Any comment on the easily-converted pena lty given away by Matfield - no comment from you obviously.        

 Matfield get's dominated in the collision, if you dispute this then go follow badminton because rugby is obviously far too complicated for you. Especially if you only watch highlights of the matches.

Cheesy still with the avatar I see...ever play at Newlands? Mike you made the comments about Matfield's tackles....JW and I think you are smoking something.....produce the proof big mouth.

 Stop digging Mike, stop digging. You were the one with the allegation about Matfield's play. You were the one who  committed yourself and now you are the one who is back-pedalling. You have got yourself in a hole and you are the only one who can dig yourself out of it. I think you have discovered that you were talking kak............. again.

You keep on coming with other stories in your desperate attempt to get away from the initial story about his tackling. Get back to that and do what you committed yourself to, or STFU.

 Dof Doos
Here it is:-
05:00  -  Tackle 1 of Matfield.  Player went forward int ackle13:00  -   Matfield prepared to tackle player - but missed it completely - not reckoned as a missed tackle45:09  -   Matfield tackled player - player going forwar in tackle52:52  -   Matfield tackled Roberts - fell forward - ball recovered by Wales63:03  -   Matfield tackled player -  gell forward - ball recovered by Wales
The other tackles all happened in the last ten minutes of the game - when Wales attacked around the fringes.   The result in all cases were the same as outlined above.  
I stopped taking notes since there was nothing really constructive on the part of Matfiedl.
During the game Matfield on two occasions call for line out balls to go to him - mistimed his jump and the line outs were lost.   On one occasion he knocked on a high kicked ball he tried to catch and he gave away a penalty when trying to carry a ball - but instad of trying to carry the ball forward - he fell down straight and to prevent a turnover - he had to hang onto the ball.   
I stated before - Matfield never once - bar for driving mauls from line outs ever went into maul situations to assist in recovering of balls - he hovered around behind mauls and let the hard grind be done by other players.  This happened throughout the game at every breakdown ball recovery process.
There is no evidence at all during the game that Matfield played a really important role in tight 5 play - it is going to cost us dearly in tests in the RC.        
   

 Mozart
The tiime you ascribe to tackles are not the official match time - that is the time of the cideo show on the internet and started after the singing of the anthems when the players sprayed out to receive the kick in.  I said the tackle was at minute 05:00 - you may have the wrong internet times - later than those recorded by me from the official match time.
So try again and admit you are as per normal writing crap.  You will just not accept that Matfield loafed through most of the match.   Way below par perform ance.  
  

 Thank you Mike. That is a start. I will watch the game and compare it with your notes and give you "report back". It has taken you a few days to  get this far and you still haven't got it quite right, but it will do for now. I will probably only have time to watch the game on Sunday afternoon because we have visitors for the weekend, but I will do it. I was hoping, but not expecting, that you would do a proper job of it and compare it with tackles by the other Bok tacklers as well.

Wrong Mike....wrong old chop. The match ticker is on the bottom right of the screen. It's starts at zero with the kickoff. You totally missed Matfield's tackle at minute 6.51.  Ho w many, many times I have had to correct you!

 Did Roberts lose possession of the balll or was there a possession turnover as the result of the Matfiekld  tackle? Yes or No?  
Possession loss would indicate how really effective the tackle was - so start again with your fairy tales.

So now every tackle Matfield makes has got to result in a possession loss. This is a witch hunt based on lies. He stopped Roberts dead, lifted him up and the ball squirted out. The commentator was right, it was a good stop on a powerful back...end of story.

Mozart
What are you on about?  TThere clearly is a difference in quality of tackles.   You claim strong tackles made by Matfield  - I say your concept of strong tackles - or you are favourite "bone-crashing tackles - are those tackles where there is possession loss or turnover.   Nobody expect from Matfield to make strong tackles all the time - but an occassional one would obviously be expected.  His tackle record is routine for a lock - nothing special - the quality of the tackles is routine - nothing special.
Which side did the ball in the Roberts tackle "squirts out"?   Did the Welsh recover it - yes or no?   Hell a lock tackling a center and the center get the ball to go back to his side?   Miracle tackle that one according to you. 
By the way - how many penalties does Matfield give away because he is physically not up to the required standard.   Too many forwards just brush him off and he ends up on the wrong sides of mauls or h e is to weak to carry balls in tackles going forwqard and then give one like he did on Saturday last week.   The Aussies and AB's must really smile all the way to the bank - just thinking about Matfield in the RC.  What a joke!!!!!!!   

 So the Welsh recovered the ball - exposed as a bullshitter again.   Suddenly a tackle becomes "authoratative" -  what is the difference between a "process" tackle and an "authorattaive" tackle. 
Let me remind you about a game between th Blues and the Sharks.   Jordaan tackled Nonu a heck of a lot - two of those tackles resulted in Nonu losing the ball in the tackle.   Is that "authoratative tackles"?   If so - they were much more "authoratative than the tackle Matfield managed - not so?  

So he tackled Nonu...the next week he was dominated by de Allende, making 2 of his 5 tackles. He ain't going to be a test player.  

Mozart 
Neither should Matfield be - he is way past it and produces the absolute minimum in tests.  Get the point?
Add to that the atrocious tackling record of Francois Steyn - whom you punt all the time - and you turn out to be a fool insofar as defense is concerned. 
You also punt Morne Steyn - who is a complete disaster in defense - yet if any of the players you dislike misses one tackle they are crucified - while if players make Alberts Treeby technique tackles - no problem.  That is fine because they are such strong tacklers.  
Funny that one - the real tackle disasters are constantly overlooked by you on the latter basis.
Now back to Matfield = for the amount of work he actually d oes on the field of play - other than line outs I would say his productivity is  5% - the rest of the time he stands around and hope that one flashy run would earn him a lot of praize.     

Sure scumbag.....that's why both Planet Rugby and Rugby 365 had Matfield in the TOW at various times in the past few weeks.