Lood on Victor Matfield

This from Lomp commenting recently on Victor......a crushing put down for the Victor deniers
‘Calling the lineouts at the World Cup was a big responsibility. Victor Matfield, [Bok assistant coach] Johann van Graan and myself spent a lot of time together analysing the opposition. Victor was the best lock in the world for more than 10 years, so I was lucky to have that opportunity to learn from him

Nice of De Jager to say that - a nice characteristic of the guy.
However, what has this got to do with the present scenario?  The situation should have been that Matfield be the assistant coach in 2014 and 2015 and not a player, since he was way past his best.  

Sounds about right. Matfield started his career in 2001 so 10 years takes us to 2011 when Matfield first retired. Don't think anyone is arguing he was a world-class lock up to that point. It's his attempted comeback that most people have a problem with. If Lood had wanted to include those years then he would have said "15 years". Note that he also said "was" rather than "is".

Lood is basically confirming what everyone except the clueless rugby noobs already know . . . that Matfield should not have come out of retirement because he was way past his best.

No surprise that Moffie is too stupid to realise he's making ou Maaik's point for him.

LMAO!

 In the greatest locks of all time ranking, Matfield is 5th.

South Africa's Victor Matfield defined the modern second row: tall, powerful, mobile and with great hands.

During his 110-cap career with the Springboks, he formed a formidable second-row partnership with Bakkies Botha that played a crucial role in South Africa claiming the 2007 World Cup in France.

One moment from the 2007 final typifies what was great about Matfield, as he tracked back to prevent England centre Matthew Tait from scoring what could have been a match-turning try.

Needless to say, Matfield was named man of the match as the Boks registered their second World Cup triumph.

Whoooooooooooooshhh!!!

Proof that stupid people don't know they're stupid!

Moffie, I repeat . . . no-one is denying Matfield was a great lock prior to his retirement. We're saying he was crap when he came out of retirement. Please try to think this through before putting up yet another pointless and irrelevant answer.

Actually RooiAAS, you couldn't be the best lock playing the game when you weren't playing the game.....2012, 2013. Nor would you argue Matfield was the best in the world in 2001/2002.....when he was a youngster learning the test trade. That leaves 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015. Exactly 10 years.
Thanks for the long hop....bwahahaha.

Well, if you take the stats and change this into that, and then you ignore some figures, selectively choose others, and then you pretend this didn't happen but pretend that something else did . . . well then yes, you might just arrive at the conclusion you want to arrive at.

Even then it doesn't change the fact that that your copy and paste completely missed the point that sailed high over your flat, sloping forehead.

Mozart talks of Matfield who were learning his trade in 2001 - what a joke.  Matfield was born on 11 May 1977 and so by 2001 and 2002 learning his trade he was already 24 and 25 years of age.   If a player learning his trade at that age - he really was a reta rded learner.   
This is absolute crap - Matfield was first selected as a Springbok in 2000 and the more than ten years De Jager was talking about ran from 2001 (age 24) to 2011.
The BS is flowing all over - he was crap in 2014 and 2015 - end of story.     

 "Sounds about right. Matfield started his career in 2001 so 10 years takes us to 2011 when Matfield first retired."

What did Loodvoet say again? Oh yes.............

".... Victor was the best lock in the world for more than 10 years,......................"

 Still only Lood's opinion. IMO Matfield probably was top of his game between 2003 and 2011, counted as one of the best during that time, and actually being the best most of the time. His partnership with Bakkies was legendary.  Ja I know it sounds corneyIMO we should have used him much more sparingly after his comeback and by the WC he should have been a bench luxury.And although it's moot to have this argument now, I hope SA coaches learn not to bank on certain players to such an extent that the next in line don't get enough exposure at the highest level.

 "IMO we should have used him much more sparingly after his comeback and by the WC he should have been a bench luxury."

I firmly beleieve that that was the original idea. Only problem was that the "prime guys" were always injured for most of the time when VM came back in. For most of the time at least one, and sometimes two, of the other three "main guys" was either injured or in rehab.

 I firmly believe if we started Matfield in the semis, we would have had a better chance. Lomp was owned, as he was in the Wales game. In fact he had a shocker in the semi...he was given a pass on our stuttering lineout and his terrible tackle  attempt on Keino. Victor instead was castigated for a very dubious penalty.
As for you AAAs owned again....hahaha. But I enjoyed your sputtering denial.

 You would also believe the moon is made of green cheese if you think Matfield was of any use in that case.   He was not - whether you firmly believe to the contrary.  This remains a joke.
Within two months his club found him to be useless and they occasionally played him from the bench - when their first choice players were away on national duty.   That is how mad your constant harping of Matfield really is. He was as useless at the WC as he was playing for his club.            

 Say what you want about the lion maned one ,but when he retired us ABs fans were very happy to wish him a lonnnng retirement with no comebacks !

There you go...you don't hear the ABs going on about how old Brad Thorne or Conrad Smith were at the WC. Were they as good as 5 years before? No, but did they serve a valuable purpose? Sure!
Half of the time at the WC Etzebeth was not fully utilized in his enforcer role....because Lomp who does it less well, usurped the role. Put in Matfield we get more physicality through a greater Etzebeth role....and we get all of Matfield's lineout prowess and reading of the game.
It's really pretty simple, but takes a smart rugby man like WD to see the obvious.

 Mozart
There is a huge difference between the NZ older players and the SA lot.  The selection of the older NZ players was on the basis of PERFORMANCE - selection of the SA players on the basis of REPUTATION.   The performance of the SA players was never an issue - they were there even when their performances were seriously defective.  Matfield was one of the worst examples of non-performance.
Your deliberate misinterpretation as to what WD said is a chronic example of how wrong you continuously are.   Matfield retired in 2011 and he wrote about that retirement - not the subsequent farce.
However, you talk crap about De Jager as well and that has been based from the very start on a lie you came out with last year.   Get over it and start to think logically please.      

 South Africa's Victor Matfield defined the modern second row: tall, powerful, mobile and with great hands
Wee matfiled 105 kg stringbean  and backline wannabee. The give away is saying powerful. When you are so wrong about this it is cealr you are a hapless wee matfield groupies who has been conned by a great con artist.Probalbly the worst lock ever to represent SA and one who decimated our tight five making it a tight 4. "Victor doesnt always play in the backline" said the immortal and long suffering Bakkies.May we never be so foolish as to play a useless guy like this again.He was so pap that I doubt he could cut it at 3 team club level! Weighing 2 kilos more than Brussouw he hid in the backline or at the back of rucks etc to preserve being battered. 

 Say what you want about the lion maned one ,but when he retired us ABs fans were very happy to wish him a lonnnng retirement with no comebacks ! Opines the warped DUD
No further evidence needed that matfiled was useless. Chief benefactors of having the papest lock in test history playing for the Boks were the wee abs! 

 "That is how mad your constant harping of Matfield really is."

Uhmm, I think that it would be interesting if we could do a count and see who exactly, on this board, is exactly guilty of constant harping of Matfield

I find myself along with a few others supporting the only Springbok who appears in most World teams in the last 12 years, against his own countrymen. For shame! The venom guys like Skinstad, Victor, Morne, Jean, Jacobs etc have had to deal with is disgusting. I speak up out of a sense of fairness, and I know my support is repetitive, but not as repetitive as the baseless, cowardly attacks on these players.

 There were no baseless cowardly attacks on any player.  The attacks on players normally relates to PERFORMANCE.  Matfield should never have  returned from retirement to play rugby again - he did his utmost to ruin his good name after his return, because that was clearly the case and the criticism is entirely based on facts.  
Morne Steyn was always a poor flyhalf and his last few games for the Springboks was a rank disaster.  Witness for instance the Perth game in 2014.  He was mostly dropped by Meyer - once in 20012 and twice in 2014 because of under-performance.  Criticism based on fact and definitely not cowardly.  
Jean was seriously injured in 2014 and never really recovered to play rugby again.  He was just not good enough to play for the Springboks again.  Definitely factual.  
If you want fairness as a norm - then look at all the players you have besmirched on the site - even lying about what happened on the field of play - and you want to pretend to be fair, a huge joke.   Your problem remains - PERFORMANCE means nothing on the field of play, but you rate players on REPUTATION.         

Another twisted, selective attack....by a bitter old ANC member.

 Woosh

matfield is a legend, but his last good season was in 2009. he didnt deliver the same impact in 2010 and beyond.
his selection for the 2011 RWC was justified as there was still enough belief that he could deliver on the big stage and rightly so IMO.

but when he came out retirement and joined meyers Boks, what a huge mistake that was, it probably didnt deserve the venomous reaction from the Bok fans, but ever since i saw habana get booed from Bok fans while playing for the Boks in SA, the reaction to matfields return was hardly surprising.

@ mozzie,

"There you go...you don't hear the ABs going on about how old Brad Thorne or Conrad Smith were at the WC. Were they as good as 5 years before? No, but did they serve a valuable purpose? Sure!"

All Black oldies were selected on merit, players who were still consistenly adding value to the team.
Bok oldies were the exact opposite, they were detrimental to the Springboks who had to leave behind a ton of good players for slow out of form liabilities.

 Who....who was left out. What wings were better than Habana. What scrumhalf was better than F du Preez. Which test class centers were omitted for JdV. As it turns out Lomp was played instead of Matfield, a mistake given Matfield won the MOM in the bronze medal game at the WC and Lomp played a big part in our loss to the ABs.

Every young player was given a chance....and most botched the chance.

 This MOM story against the Argentine "B" team is a legend Mozart kept harping on.  It as in fact a farce since Matfield was definitely not the best player that day.  After joining his new club a month later Matfield was so disgustingly poor that he since the WC got selected by his Club as a routine bench player when their locks was on national duty.
Every young player who ended up in the WC was played to the death - never rested during the tournament because the older players were such massive let-downs.   The experienced lot caused so much havoc by under-performance that they lost against Japan of all teams - that test was the worst ever by a Springbok team being the "most experienced team ever fielded by the Springboks".  
Matfield was so bad that day that there was an on-field bust-up between him and Bismarck that day - which let to Bismarck being dropped from the team from the team for the next test.  A major reason for the loss was because Matfield did not follow the pre-designed game plan of Meyer. 
Mozart will never accept that after his return from retirement  Matfield was the worst selection Meyer made.   That is the fact he cannot face up to and he keeps on making a fool of himself all the time.    
   

 Geez Moz you do speak a load of crap...firstly we all know Matfield was one of the best locks in his time...with the emphasis on was....he was utterly useless on his return and one of the prime reasons Meyer failed was because of investment is players well past it. 
Lood was in the top 5 best players of the WC....his stats for a lock were unbelievable. Your take on him being outplayed against Wales is fabrication...Chateris did not come close to Lood in that game....same applies to Whitelock in the semi who never gained a single metre. 
At the time Matfield played in the WC......Willemse, Jacques du Plessis, Mostert, Lewies, Ruan Botha, Jean Kleyn, PSDT, Jason Jenkins, Lorens Erasmus and RG Snyman were all far better options.
Same applies to Jean.....Frans Venter for a start would have been a far better option than past it Jean.....same goes for Serfontein, Mapoe, Vorster, Odendaal, Janse v Rensburg, Mnisi, Dries Swanepoel etc.
Faf de Klerk would have been a far better option than du Preez who did absolutely squat. Hougaard to would have offered far more than just du Preez and his pass and kick.
Meyer failed because he failed to invest in our best players who happen to be the same youngsters that carrying the SA flag this Super rugby comp.
Just take Jantjies vs Morne as an option it's laughable that Jantjies was ignored....same applies to Jaco Kriel and a host of others.
Moz, like Meyer you are stuck in a time warp...get with it man....embrace the new....its looking damn good from where I am watching seeing the talent and brand of rugby being played by the Lions, Stormers and Bulls. The only disappointment is delivered by the Meyer clone in Gold at the Sharks...he like Meyer is doing that squad of talented youngsters a diservice.

 Nice to have you back Dave. 

@mozzie,
"Who....who was left out. What wings were better than Habana. What scrumhalf was better than F du Preez. Which test class centers were omitted for JdV. As it turns out Lomp was played instead of Matfield, a mistake given Matfield won the MOM in the bronze medal game at the WC and Lomp played a big part in our loss to the ABs."
- habana and burger are excluded from my under performing Bok oldies list.
habana didnt have form, but his rugby reputation was still solid enough to warrant selection.
burger on the other hand had both reputation and form, so no probs there.

- JDV on the other hand was well past it, and i would have selected serfontein over him.
if i remember correctly serfontein was called in to replace JDV after he was injured in the match where the Boks were slaughtered by rugby minnows japan???

- schalk britz selection didnt have that much of an impact, as pigmarck and strauss were both there and IMO at the time the two best hookers in the world.
but i would have selected sacra ntubeni over britz who was showing promising potential.
the third hooker spot was a token spot cos of pigmarck and strauss who were always going to be used for the important games, so selecting ntubeni would have been a smart move in easing the political tensions as well. smart and meyer though dont go hand in hand.

- matfield one of the leading candidates for worst oldie of the lot, jaacque du plessis, paul wilemese are better then the legend in every single way imaginable bar experience.

- f du plessis and ruaan peinaar. klerk, reinach hougaard, exactly the same as  matfield.

- morne steyn. Lord have mercy, trust meyer to add to his reputation as an idiot with this selection.
janties 2015 spXV seasson had him clearly the best flyhalf in SA based on form.
similar to schalk britz though, the flyhalf spot had pollard and lambie as the clear cut top 2 flyhalves, so selecting janties should not only have been the obvious choice, it would have helped lighten the political weight too.

- francois slow aka worst international flanker in the world.
take ur pick from an empty bag of chips or a used condom, both are better flankers then that south african snorlax.
but for the sake of ur argument, there are many i would have selected, but jacko kreil is on top of the list easy, he wasnt just SA best loose forward in the 2015 spXV, he was the best loose forward period.

- wilhelm alberts i would have picked marcel coetzee or whittley both who had way better form.

 Francois Louw had an outstanding match against NZ....just one example of how wrong you are Sushi. And it's not just my opinion, here is the Guardian:
6 Francois Louw 7/10 He was a terror at the breakdown and rock hard in defence, particularly in the first half, when South Africa looked the likelier winners. The Boks’ answer to McCaw.

 Mozart
Nobnody really moaned about Francois Louw being in the Springbok squad.   he has one serious deficiency - namely lack of pace, which in NH conditions are not as detrimental as it is in SH conditions.   Sasue mentioned him bearing in mind the serious pace deficiency.  Louw would be a better blind side player than he is an opensider.  
The bad eggs in Meyer's squad was not necessarily him - it was the following:-
Kirchner, De Villiers, Morne Steyn, Pienaar, Alberts, Matfield, Jannie du Plessis and Brits.
Some would include Du Preez in that category as well - especially since he had virtually no rugby in the 14 months leading up to the WC tournament.  After he was brought into the starting team because Pienaar was unholy atrocious in the Japan test - he was better than Pienaar, but was that really the norm?  If it was it was an exceedingly low bar was set.  However, the reason why Du Preez was brought in was the atrocious game plan Meyer decided on.   That game plan suited Du Preez to a t.   It entailed the easily predictable game of passing the balls to forwards and largely ignoring backline play.   That was the game Du Preez played in 2004 to 2006 and he was good in.  However, the game plan became unproductive in later years, since the emphasis was not on scoring tries, which ultimately would be unsuccessful in tests  and  cannot under present playing conditions win crucial games.  
Be it as it may - the whole argument is past history and Meyer got sacked while the rest of the above players faded out badly in subsequent games they played for their clubs.  If they were poor in games they played in so soon after the WC - what justification was really there for them being in the WC squad?  I am afraid none really.

 So this year we will win the RC without the anchor of the veterans. I look forward to seeing Coetzee on the fetch, Lomp doing the thinking, Malherbe dominating the scrums, Kriel as the main defensive cog, Allende tractoring to glory and Whiteley taking Reid apart.

None of the veterans did what you described and now you claim the players you listed will be equally inept.   You are foolish because you cannot read what is going on in matches and then try and portray players you dislike negatively.
But I will give you a chance to defend your statement as to fetching by whom, since you in the past proved that you do not understand the issue of ball protection and recovery at all.  When did Albert ever performed those functions?  Your assessment of De Jager is the normal BS produced by a fool - so go on.   Did Jannie dominate any scrums?  He was better known for jet speed retreat in the Argentina tests.      
De Allende made more line breaks in the WC than any other center having to work from scraps because of the Meyer game plan and then you went ballistic about him.
Look why do you use the normal Mozart technique - not defending the players listed as not being up to standard in the WC squad - who should never have been in the squad and then start questioning the abilities of better players than those mentioned based on extreme BS?