Lood 100 times better than Matfield

 Lood had a good match. 

He is a good player, not a bad game for a lad who has not played in months......a vast improvement on Matfield who is a physical liability.
Its just a pity we cant seem to use the physicality of players like Lood, Etzebeth, Coetzee and Bismark to our advantage.......instead we see no plan in place to win the game

 With Mayfield  injured,  I hope Willemse gets the nod. 

 Yeah... The complete scrum dominance that we had up to that point disappeared when Lood came on and he lost two lineouts on our own throw.

Yes, he was definitely much better than Matfield in open play,  but what are the PRIMARY duties of a lock?

Oh so now the Troof thinks the scrum was better with lightweight Matfield on board........bwhaaaaahaaaaa........that has to be the joke of the year thus far.......you fucking idiot

There is no chance in hell useless Meyer would call on the impressive Willemse or Jacques du Plessis.
Lets hope Matfield is out for the season

 The Trooth Fairy
The first scrum after Matfield was gone was the best scrum of the Springboks in the game and it got better after that.   Matfield in scrumming and Tight 5 play is absolute BS.

 Dave 
What impressed me was the hard tackles De Jager put in - when he tackles a bloke he drives him back most of the time.  That is the exact opposite of the piss-poor quality tackles Matfield makes.   He worked very hard - as against the moonlighting out of position of Matfield.  We cannot afford the latter clown in the team anymore.
If Matfield was on for longer we would have lost by 10 points more - De Jager made tackles Matfield would never have made because as you said - he is physically deficient.    

 I think the troof fairy is here simply yo get a rise. Not the only one of course. Using my mobile to post which is a pain.

Lood has always played like that that's why I had to laugh at the utter rubbish written by some on here about him.

 Truth,  you're  full of shit. Things got even better eith Lood on.  If you wantto play the blame game,  try Strauss for measure. 

 Lood is an excellent young Lock prospect.Our locks for the RWC should be Eben , Willemse, Du Toit and Lood.Jaque Du Plessis should be in the squad to cover 7 and lock.
Why has ou Meyer ignored Willemse and Du Plessis. Because they walk ed out on the bulle. Hmmmmmm?

 I looked at the comments on the issue of Matfield and virtually all contributors on News 24 said that Matfield should stay where he was after the injury - never be on the field of play again.  Some even went so far as to call the injury a blessing.

 A 105kg lock is  joke in the modern game. Matfield should be the bench backup af best. Truth,  are you Victors mom? 

Matfield should be nowhere near the bench....he is utterly useless these days.
A physical liability....an old man playing a young man's game.

 Schalk has a good 6 or 7 years on Vic.

Victor would not have been fooled into allowing Hooper's try...that's for sure. All I saw from Lomp was a lot of process tackling. He was adequate no more in the lineouts. His ball carries we're not productive...there were no offloads, kick off takes or good passes.  

 Mozart
Let us agree that you are talking KAK - suddenly De Jager's strong tackles in tackling players back is "process tackles"  and Matfield few weak tackles is not.  Matfield was on the field 17 minutes and what did he achieve in those 17 minutes?  Three process tackles and one line-out take. 
"His ball carries we're not productive...there were no offloads, kick off takes or good passes."   Was there any in the case of Matfield?  Zero.
The one thing you missed out is the fact that the scrumming improved massively the moment Matfield was gone because as stated for the past year - his poor contribution in scrumming is a given.   In tests the only time that Matfield made passes was when he was moonlighting in the backline instead of doing his work in the engine room.  De Jager's carries were all in traffic - something Matfield is totally incapable of doing.   There were two driving mauls where good progress were made - both in which De Jager played a key role and some mauls where the Aussies made no progress because we had two locks - not a lock and a dummy.
"Victor would not have been fooled into allowing Hooper's try"   That is a BS statement if I ever saw one.  Matfield is a weak tackler if ever there was one and an assumption like yours is unsustainable and an assumption based on your standard crap.  Problem is the continued presence of Matfield  with his poor quality defensive record is likely to have lead to a bigger loss than by 4 points. 
Now for the fi9nal nail in the Mozart BS story:-
"But a hallmark of that department was also the way Lood de Jager, the 22-year-old second-rower, asserted himself after answering the emergency call to replace injured icon Victor Matfield in the first quarter. He did enough to earn top rating on the Sport24 performance card ."  

  

 
To be honest, one would have to search far and wide to find anyone worse than Matfield.

What worries me even more is that Meyer has this useless man pegged to lead the Boks in the coming world cup.

None as blind as those who will not see ...
 

 One hopes that Dr Mozzzz and Card will, before wee matfiled retires, come to see how useless the show pony is. 
Even if matfiled had have been in place to make the tackle he would HAVE BEEN DRIVEN BACK OVER THE LINE. He always gets driven back when tackling. Powder puff tackler.Matfiled is a severe embarassment to anybody well attuned to Bok history. We have produced the greatet locks in the business and we pla y a guy like this!!