Eat Matfield Crow 11 Lying Tokkie.

Tokkie says the following: 

clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 19973RE: So Carbuncle...
October 11, 2015, 03:30:32

There are various discussions on this site.  And the fact is that reality is where we will fall flat if we use the wrong approach in the upcoming game against Wales.   i think that Schalk is a very good loosie, but to use him as first or second receiver of balls when coming from mauls is a serious mistake - as proven in the Japan fiasco.   He is not the strongest ball carrying loosie around.

Incidentally the same technique was tried in 2011 in the quarterfinal - but Schalk role was then handled by Matfield and it was equally ineffective as it was in the game against Japan. 

But as we can see Matfield carried no more than Rossouw or Louw, and way less than Schalk. This is just another example of the lies this man throws out there as facts. The most dishonest poster I have ever come across.
Danie RossouwL02870010Victor MatfieldL067130011Francois LouwF03890000Willem AlbertsF01100000Schalk BurgerF0171638001

And parroting Rooinek's opinion piece while he's at it. 

  @mozart,
your stats don't prove nothing at all.

What Mike was talking about is the mistake he considers using Burger "as first or second receiver of balls" and that the same mistake was made in 2011 with Matfield.
Putting the 2011 overall stats of "runs" and "meters made" where Burger's are quite superior to Matfield's say nothing about what Mike is stating. Burger's "runs" and "meters made" could be from picks and goes or from being the 4th, 5th, ... receiver, etc.

But what is the sense of this thread? just to try to bash another member of this site? if this is the case, and I cannot find any other reason, this is very low and mean

 ".................just to try to bash another member of this site?"

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Get off your sanctimonious high chair and notice how this is coming from more sides than one.

 In each thread I post about what is in each thread.
I don't care if there are "more sides" or not. This thread was a clumsy attemp of bashing and I criticized as it. Any problem?
And it's not the first attemp, it's the 11th.

Basque is a reflex poster. He opposes anything I post by definition. This is a clear cut case of lying by Mike...as the numbers show Schalk was used as our regular runner, not Matfield. Case closed.  

 Mozart
What lead to my comments was a follow-up about Carpet Muncher's statement on what happened in 2011.   I cannot see what bearing this post has on anything at present.   
What was clear in 2011 was that the Springboks had nearly 80% possession in 2011 and that they fouled up badly in using of the possession.   I would not be surprised if Muncher's statement was correct - Matfield was always moonlighting in the backline and his ball carries would always be as backline receiver not in Tight 5 play.
The reason why Matfield and most of the hangovers from that WC - inclusive of the piss poor" Morne Steyn - should not be anywhere near the Springbok team on Saturday.  
The Springboks had the ball so much but they did nothing with all that possession and you want the dolts in the match 23 on Saturday.   To use he same game plan as was used in the relevant match in 2011 and repeated in the Japanese test this year will be suicidal - that is the main issue to be dealt with.
Anyway to bring in Matfield into the squad for the day would be suicidal as well.   The further he is away from the play-off games - the better for the team.              

There's a trade-off to be made on Saturday, where the Matfield crew have to admit that Lood deserves the start with Etzebeth based on his performances so far and the power style of game we have to play, and the anti-matifeld crew have to admit it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to have Matfield for 25/30 minutes at the end of the game to close the game out. His line-out work and experience could be vital at the end. It would also mean he could go 100% for 30 minutes knowing he doesn't have to pace himself for the whole game. 

Tokkie  its quite simple...you just decided to bash Matfield again. But it was totally untrue....I don't care what the excuse. The truth ....that's what we expect from posters who make statements of fact.
APD, what happens when we have Lomp and Etzebeth is Eben tends to be marginalized. He never got one lineout call in the last two games. So we have much better balance with Victor and Eben. Lomp is not a bad option, he simply isn't as much of an athlete as Eben or as much of a tactician as Victor.
So I would have Matfield for the whole game and swop Eben out at minute 60. That gives us better balance, better use of our most physical lock and better lineout nous. Lomp for example lost a key lineout against Scotland that took away an almost certain try.
But the key  point is with Lomp and Etzebeth you get one Lomp and half an Etzebeth.

 Mozart
You are accusing me of lying - yet in the very next paragraph you lied about the line out calls - in respect of which you were caught out.
You say that with Matfield we have a good lock combination - because Matfield is a good "tactician".   But what is a "tactician" worth as a lock when the tactitian is just not performing well enough.   In the Japanese test the "tactician" decided to igbore the instructions given to him by Meyer because he has shown that he is no good in rolling mauls.   
Matfield is not a player who is any good in Tight 5 play - he has zero grunt.  He is just not physically strong enough to have a positive impact.   He cannot carry balls in traffic and his participation in for instance rolling mauls is marginal - getting pushed out of the maul with ease and then being of no use subsequently.   
Matfield in that team and we will definitely lose our forward competitiveness and lose the game on Saturday.  The further away he is from that team the better our chances to win the game.   I hope Meyer realizes that and keep him out of the playing squad on Saturday.            

Rubbish, I was never "caught out" on any lineout calls ...I added together the lineout calls and the phase runs off the breakdowns. You simply were unable to grasp the concept.

 We dont need the pathetic matfiled for a second. The stringbean fouls uo our backline and decimates our tight five. We have bags of experience as it is in.Burger and Vermuelen etc. Matfiled is the worst lock ever simply because he is not a lock at all. Lood is world class and if we need a replavement bring on Steph. Having we matfield around is the dumbest think.Meyer has ever done. AWAY WITH THE SHOW PONY!!!!!

Mozart
What you wrote about the Aussie test was totally absurd.   The lien out calls proved to be absurd as well and the other calls you added in was rubbsih - a gifment of a fairy tale you dreamed up.  The scrummie does not heed "calls"  - he assessed who in that particular time was in a better position to carry up the ball and pass it to that player.  
However, that is not the point - the point is the selection of Matfield  and our losing of forward competitiveness because of his lack of grunt.  You want him in for 80 minutes - I do not want him on the field for 80 seconds.    Matfield is way past his best and his contribution to games is little compared to what for instance De Jager brings to games.           

  This was dominance against the US ....hahahaha. HasBeen for heaven sake Stephanie is totally not ready for WC play. Hell he has hardly played in 3 years. Give the poor kid a break, let him wear his blazer and walk around like one of the manne. Time will tell if he can develop.

(L)du Toit0/000/0/2000016/14/010/0

 You lost the whole point I am trying to make.  It would especially against for instance the AB's be of great help to have a third line out option - like Read is in their case.
However, Du Toit is a much stronger player than Matfield is in any event and he would not bugger up line-outs as badly as Matfield did against the AB' last year in the last ten minutes of the two tests.
    

 Steph is a weak lock. And lacks durability. Vic is pretty tough and a much harder worker. Steph will never be more than half the player Vic is. Bekker was a vastly superior player to Steph and still couldn't make it at test level. This is what you get when you base hype off a Tin Cup showing, a Lamebie and Steph egg party.
As for the lying, what's new? He has been caught in lies on a weekly bases for four years. Only thing is he has become more sloppy with age. 

But Mark Andrews said he was crucial to our WC chances.

 He is definitely more crucial than Matfield - who is nowadays not much more than a passenger insofar as the forward play is concerned,   

Quick question, did Matfield call any line-outs to Etzebeth in the Japanese game? I honestly don't know the answer, but I seem to recall a sports reporter saying that he had not been called to take a line-out in the first two games of the World Cup. Matfield did all the calling against Japan. Just saying. 

Bluebok
Matfield played for the full game against Samoa and did call 5 line-outs to go to De Jager, but zero to Etzebeth, when he replaced De Jager.  In the Samoa test Matfield played for 54  minutes and never made a sibngle line call to go to Etzebeth.   So in the time Matfield was on the field of play (134 minutes) his Line Out Calls were as follows:
Total made   -    22Matfield       -    16De Jager      -     5Du Toit       -      1Etzebeth     -      0
The case of De Jager calling were as follows  in the 156 minutes he played:-
Total calls    -    21De Jager      -    15 Vermeulen    -     6
Matfield never once called a line-out go to Etzebeth - neither did De Jager.  In the case of Matfield it is a well-known fact that Matfield does not involve himself in that aspect of the game.  After Meyer gave him a tongue-lashing on account of non-compliance with his instructions - Matfield shifted himself to the front of the line -out and made calls to De Jager and Du Toit who had to start and co-ordinate/Steer the rolling mauls,     
I think that in the tests played - De Jager called line-outs in accordance with instructions based on usage of rolling mauls - same as Matfield - but for the purpose of rolling mauls he amde suire he was not jumping at 5 - De Jager and Du Toit was. and   Lijne-outs are not called to go to the front of the front jumper since it leads to mauls being pushed over the sideline.  Mozart is making his standard misleading claptrap again about De Jager.  
     

 Well the latest argument is Matfield doesn't call the rolling mauls on himself....but uses the other lock. But as we see here Etzebeth won one lineout....but not on his own throw. So we have to assume that there were no Bok mauls in the entire time Matfield was on the park. And it's not that the loosies were being used...they collectively got zero ball.
Matfield imperiously took everything including two Samoan balls.

The Perv hoisted by his own petard, beentjies kicking in the air.

For a while I thought they may be protecting an Etzebeth injury, but he has clearly jumped on opposition ball.....so something interesting is a foot as it were. And it's not that....haahahahahaha....number four locks no longer take lineout ball.
 
LEtzebeth0/000/4/132301306/00/120/0LMatfield0/000/4/1800008/09/220/0

 What the hell is going on here? Caught telling an outright lie and he continues with it.  That really is a joke.   Look elsewhere as to the issue of line out calls going to Etzebeth.
You can shout your head off - but Matfield is not a locks backside at this stage of his career - or rather he is.   Useless and very poor in Tight 5 play.     

 Continues with what Queer? I just pointed out Etzebeth got no lineout calls. We have moved on to your statement that Matfield never calls any mauls on himself. In fact while Matfield was on the park he called every lineout on himself....so how do you explain this maul....huh?
45

Samoa starting to look a little ragged and South Africa get a penalty in kickable range and opt to kick for the corner and a try-bid rather than the 3-points.

466 - 22

The Bok line out is followed by a rolling maul and a dart at the posts and then some loving passing out to the wing and Pietersen scores his 20th international TRY!

 He can't, because he is a liar.

 Well, in spite of endless articles posted by me & others & recently internet links to live games, nothing can distract the main participants in threads such as this one from beating on each other - the personal insults have reach new lows. It seems to be more important that the games themselves. 

Cry me a river.  

It will a huge blunder to have the pathetic we matfiled 105 kg and 38 years old in the mat h 15. Anybody disagreeing is an ignofamys of the worst sort. you couldnt make a buvger BLUNDER Du Toit is 3 times the player the useless connman is. Away with the dense matfiled groupies they are as half baked as can be and an embarrassment. Hilariuos stuff from the buffoons!

 You are entitled to your point of view. We are entitled to be bored with it after so many repe titions.

 Du Tout three times the player? ROFLMAO!! In terms of what, injuries accumulated? The poor little boy was handed his backside on a platter when faced Victor in Super rugby, it was embarrassing. Essentially turned the lineout game into peek-a-boo shifting around in desperation. Can't handle the rough stuff, the Japanese who were labelled small, skilless, slow, unfit and weak blew this pretender out of the water. LMAO!!! You groupies amuse me. 

 Du Tout three times the player? ROFLMAO!! In terms of what, injuries accumulated? The poor little boy was handed his backside on a platter when faced Victor in Super rugby, it was embarrassing. Essentially turned the lineout game into peek-a-boo shifting around in desperation. Can't handle the rough stuff, the Japanese who were labelled small, skilless, slow, unfit and weak blew this pretender out of the water. LMAO!!! You groupies amuse me. 

 DF
Remember the norm - Lunatics think they are the only sane people in the world - everyone else is insane.  From a rugby perspective that sounds very much like you.