JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
02 Apr 2014, 10:44#2
Well, according to some (Beeno) excluding wee Matfield will strengthen the Bulls so no loss right?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Apr 2014, 11:14#3
Just win
Mozart will flip a lid about this one - but I tend to agree with Beeno and Saffex here. Matfield is not really producing the goods - other than in a few line outs - and that is not the all round tight 5 player required in this case.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
02 Apr 2014, 11:43#4
Spot on Mike. Matfiled is a very poor lock and his lineout work is vastly overated.
However you have to admire the shrewdness of Victor as he continues his con job. He knows the bulle will lose a games few overseas and doubtless the groupies will then put it down to matfield not playing.Man the guy will surely make a shrewed coach.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
02 Apr 2014, 11:52#5
JW the game is up re matfield and the kiws are blow ing their cover punting him.As always Beeno many steps ahead of the kbbs!
02 Apr 2014, 11:53#6
Funny ... I always thought Matfield was a poor scrummager ... still is ... so nothing's changed there.
He's still stealing opposition line out ball, as he used to do ... sooooooo nothings changed there either.
I saw him put in an awesome amount of tackles this past weekend, as he used to do ... sooooo doesn't look as if much has changed there either.
His captaincy was good. He lead by example. The lads around him took confidence in his presence ... so I reckon all that, and his great level of fitness stands him in good stead.
So what's the issue???
Horseshit aside Beeno and Mike ... what's the issue???
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Apr 2014, 11:57#7
Cleancut
The issue is he is not really Springbok material anymore. He stol;e one line out last week against Retallick - against the same opposing player, Steenkamp stole 5, so is he still the line out jumper he used to be?
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
02 Apr 2014, 12:13#9
CC you daft hatter please. locks of 106kg cant cut it as tight forards. As Mike pointed out he stole one ball. Now for his groupeis and nutters like you he is the mostest in the lineouts. He is terribly pap. Never makes a yard in the traffic. Plays in the backline most of the time and puts in powder puff tackles. He is not by any stretch of the imagination a tight forward. He has good hands and can catch aball. His lightness enables the props to lift him very quickly. That's about it.
If you watch him closely you see how he is avoids the contact as much as possible and loafs about - a show pony of note but cleave -that I grant you.
Bulle bring back Flip - a real lock.
02 Apr 2014, 12:16#10
Bee no ... you weren't listening to me.
I clearly said "horseshit aside" ... now try again!!!
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
02 Apr 2014, 12:26#11
cc what makes you think you know what horseshit is and isnt!!
02 Apr 2014, 12:41#12
Anything and everything that comes from the mouth of Beandip qualifies, my man!!
Simple ... see??
JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
02 Apr 2014, 13:35#13
Cleancut : there is a certain beauty in simplicity but please don't pick on my mate Beeno
02 Apr 2014, 13:57#14
But ... but ... but ... he's so easy to pick on.
Besides it's fun to see him flustered.
Go on ... be a pal ... let me at him!!!
AJArthur John
Pro1,748 posts
AJArthur JohnPro1,748 posts
02 Apr 2014, 16:39#15
Two reasons why he will not take the field in the tour.
1. Father time has caught up with him. The mind is willing but the body is not.2. The NZ and Aussie rugby folks will see just how desperate SA Rugby is to hang onto yesteryear
Stay in coaching Victor you do have experience that you can share with the young in form players.
Remember we would like to see the "Best and not the Rest" take the field in Springbok colours.
sharkbok
Captain23,295 posts
sharkbokCaptain23,295 posts
02 Apr 2014, 17:50#16
I think Matfield is saving himself for the Boks, and the 2015 World Cup. He realizes if he has allready proved to Meyer that he is the top number 5 lock in SA-in lineouts and kick offs, and is useful in defence.
Matfield has never been a great scrummager, or strong with the ball in hand.
Apart from lineouts and kick offs he is allways played more like an average loose forward, than a lock.
However calling the lineouts and kick offs is the core function of a number5 lock, along with scrumaging.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Apr 2014, 18:55#17
Sharkbok
Matfield played two games from the bench and then four in the starting line up. He did take line out balls and in fact stole 2 from the opposition and he made tackles, but what has that proved?
If you look at the performances of other fives - not even remotely Springbok material - you will find they have done more than Matfield did in line-outs and more in tackles. So why should he - being weak in scrumming and ball carries - be given preference to locks performing better than him against similar opposition?
JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
02 Apr 2014, 19:27#18
Well, speaking as one kiwi on this forum I am glad they are putting wee Maty in cotton wool for the RWC. We would like to see him prancing around the field as a bok "lock". Not sure why all Bok supporters don't support him, he isn't a weakness is he?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Apr 2014, 21:47#20
Mozart
What lie? Because I said he is to weak to ply against stronger opposing locks it is a lie? Because he is not bringing his side in scrums - is that a lie?
So Matfield decides when he plays and when he does not play - how convenient for him that one. He can pick the sides where he would do well in line outs and avoids others like the plague. What a chancer!!!!!
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Apr 2014, 22:01#21
You imply Matfield was left out for performance .....nothing could be further from the truth. As for the scrums, there is no way you can judge how much power is flowing through each lock, except if positions were rotated. Greyling was a problem all the way back to the Sharks first match, when he had Flip behind him. Is Flip also a weak scrummager?
All your lies .....man how does your brain work....are you that needy?
02 Apr 2014, 22:30#22
For one, I have to applaud the bulls for their player management. I always believed senior bok players should be managed better. The season is way to long to expect to perform both for their provinces and the boks. I think taking them out the tour is good for the boks and teams. Youngster get a fair crack to play 4 games in row where as the senior bok players gets some good mid season conditioning.
I like the fact that Matfield played 2 games of the bench, 4 starting and pretty much the whole game and now have a four game break.
Would like to same being applied to the following players.
De villiers, f Steyn, Alberts, beast, Bismarck, Jannie, estebeth, burger, willie.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Apr 2014, 22:40#23
Well said Corn....these older players take longer to recover. Jean really needs a rest.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Apr 2014, 23:20#24
Mozart
For heavens sake - where did you see that I "imply" anything? I jus said that there are weaknesses in his game - especially in scrumming - but that may not count for anything 0 it is merely a fact that was clear as daylight when you see how his body behave ibn scrums.
I said he did his job in line outs and his tackling. but for the rest he was not obvious in any of the games he played in.
Those are facts - not lies. and I did not imply anything by stating obvious facts.
When a player goes into scrums and his back arch upwards when the pressure is on - it is physically impossible for such a player to provide any force in scrumming. You blame Greyling - but he is a stronger scrummager than Kruger and with Willemse in support - there was no problem on that side of the scrum.
You can switch the locks as much as you like and the problem will be on the si de where Matfield is scrumming.
For once - open your eyes and look at what happens in the scrum of the Bulls. And look at how Matfield goes into scrums and what happens when the pressure is on - that is if you want not to see it - you may understand what happens.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Apr 2014, 23:44#25
" Although there are much raving and shouting about Matfield it seems there are deficiencies and those are not picked up by the avid Matfield supporters".....right there you are implying Matfield has been dropped.
There are no deficiencies, except those you want to see.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Apr 2014, 00:03#26
Mozart
Your quote implies nothing = you must be dreaming up BS again. If you do not believe what I wrote about scrumming - open your bloody eyes and see what happens in scrums.
I think you are incapable of looking at rugby objectively and studying what happens on the field of play, because you are blinded by prejudice. Maybe if you do look objectively you will actually see what is wrong with most of the players you support.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
03 Apr 2014, 00:45#27
What happens in the scrums is the Bools locks are absolutely flat, with Willemse's hips slightly higher than Matfield.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Apr 2014, 03:48#28
Mozart
When did you see that - or are you dreaming again?
Another case like Steyn and De Jongh missing tackles being ignored because they are such strong tacklers, or ignoring their losing ball possession and giving away penalties and then writing them up as being the best players of the week?
You do not see anything you do not wish to see. So try again and do not try and come up with untrue rubbis h.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
03 Apr 2014, 04:11#29
When did I see that? Why today when I reviewed the Chiefs game. The backs of the Bools locks were dead flat....contrary to the nonsense you posted. Matfield packed slightly lower than Willemse.
Now why would their backs be flat? Well because of the way they pack down. There is no pressure pushing their heads down as with props....the pressure is transferred laterally. So there is no reason for their heads to be dropping below their hips, unless the prop is literally falling.
The position of a locks shoulders is fixed by the hips of the props. So unless those hips drop, his shoulders are up ...so how the hell could he have a bent back?
I have never seen a lock who scrums with a bent back and I certainly didn't see one in the Bools team. You are talking total nonsense.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Apr 2014, 04:30#30
Mozart
You have again seen what you wanted to see - not what really happened.
And by the way the following statement of youras are moire misleading than anything I said about Matfield:-
"Well said Corn....these older players take longer to recover. Jean really needs a rest"
Jean is not rested - he has a cyst problem - that is the reason why he is not playing this week. He may need a rest - but that is not the reason why he is not playing. The things you dream up - really amazing?
Do you wrote down what you are going to write on this site about certain players before the game and then have them ready to read in as messages after the matches? Seems so - because you are so far out with your assessments you write immediately after matches.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
03 Apr 2014, 04:42#31
I never said he was rested....I said he needed a rest. Spot the difference. But you are changing the subject, which would be a good thing, because this arch-backed lock thing is pure nonsense.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Apr 2014, 05:16#32
Not changing the topic - just responding to the normal Mozart tripe under this thread. If you did not see what happened in the scrums - you must be blind. Bit that is standard with you see what you want to see and the rest is ignored.
After all is it not you who wrote elsewhere that you use everything that support your arguments and ignore the rest. What a buffoon you are.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
03 Apr 2014, 05:24#33
It was a joke Oom, you know humour. But not nearly as funny as these arch backed locks you see. Did you ever consider the fact that the height of hips and shoulders are anatomically and locationally fixed? So between them the back arches? I suppose like a cat.....hahaha. Man you really do come up with dumbest stuff in support of your pet theories.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Apr 2014, 10:21#34
There definitely were scrums where it was clearly visible in the case of Matfield - sos top trying to hide facts. Matfield clearly was like crinckle paper between the prop and the no 8.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Apr 2014, 10:21#35
There definitely were scrums where it was clearly visible in the case of Matfield - sos top trying to hide facts. Matfield clearly was like crinckle paper between the prop and the no 8.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
03 Apr 2014, 11:06#36
Moz you once sad Beeno knows a good lock when he sees one.Please be advised wee victor is no lock. You cannot play test rugby with a tight 4. A lock cannot be 106 kg and a stringbean. Similary a loose forward cannot be 92 kgs etc.
Mike is correct he is not stealing enough ball to warrant selection. Give me Flip any day ahead of wee matfiled. It would be a disaster for him to come anywhere near a Bok side.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Apr 2014, 11:54#37
Beeno
Mozart is trying his utmost to disprove the obvious. He is not seeing what really is happening because he does not want to see it. The same thing happened when Bakkies played in the Scotland test. When the final whistle was hardly blown - he wrote a praise song on Botha - which was unbelievable. When he was corrected and it was pointed out that Bakkies was not really the player he made him out to be in the said test, he nearly went toxic.
Mozart wants to see Matfield and Botha as the Bok locks in 2015 at the WC come hell or high water, irrespective of whether they are still capable to perform on test level or not. Any statement that they are not what they used to be, is denied by him with unadulterted praise singing being the constant.
What else can one expect from a member who insist that the team should basically comprise of 30 year old plus players. Nobody younger than 30 really fits his book. He is living in the past and cannot face the fact that changes are necessary.
.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
03 Apr 2014, 12:45#38
HasBEEN if I ever said you know your locks I have to have been into excessive amounts of the blushful hippocrene....you know with beaded bubbles and all the trimmings.
TTThe_Truth
Club Pro471 posts
TTThe_TruthClub Pro471 posts
03 Apr 2014, 15:35#39
Matfield does not need to contest many balls. Just because he is there, the opposition tend to throw to the other positions in the line-outs and then it is much easier to contest, because you know where the throw is probably going to go.
AJArthur John
Pro1,748 posts
AJArthur JohnPro1,748 posts
03 Apr 2014, 19:57#40
Guys you have to understand where Mozar'st feelings and loyalty are.
He wants all the old timers to play for the Springboks in RWC 2015 because the US Eagles might have to play against the Boks.
Talk about being desperate....well that's the Americans for you.
