Matfield - Was his return worthwhile?

Matfield started playing Super 15 rugby last year and the Bulls was not a house on fie in that year - ending 8th on the log.   In 2015 the Bulls Super 15 record was even worse.   
Then he started his return to rugby in June 2014 and it would be interesting to see what happened since then in the games he played in :-
June 2014  -   Wales - test 1  - won                    Wales - test 2  - won
RC            -   Australia away  - lost               -   AB's away        - lost               -   Australia          - won               -   AB's                - won
WOYT      -   Ireland             - lost                   England           - won                   Italy               - won                   Wales             - lost
2015            Australia          - lost
The problem was that three of the tests listed as wins was by extremely narrow margins - ie against Wales (2nd June test), the Ellis Park test against the AB's and the England test.
From a personal perspective Matfield fouled up badly in two of the won test - 
*   in the AB test he lost a Springbok line-out throw-in, which resulted in an AB try.  in the last ten minutes so the test and the Springboks only won when Lambie kicked a miracle conversion of a penalty; and
*   in the England test he was yellow-carded as a result of repeated illegal play.
The question is - why did the team have such a poor performance record.  In essence the Springboks were very consistent in their team selection  with very few team changes made to the side,  Essentially the changes in the Tight 5 were minimal.  Only Matfield was consistently selected for the listed games on the list of games quoted above.
For the rest there virtually all the time, Jannie du Plessis, Bismarck du Plessis, Beast  and Etzebeth were in most teams.  The question is - why did the Springboks Tight 5 became inadequate over the past year and was mostly not up to standard over the period of 14 months - which caused a downturn in the performance of the rest of the team.   This has resulted in the Springboks getting run over by the fact that the Tight 5 became substantially less effective.
The fact remain that the problem can be traced back to the Matfield-factor.  Matfield has never been a grunt player - whatsoever he had in his prime has vanished from sight.  His contributions in scrums and mauls have in the main being ineffective and unsatisfactory.       
Matfield is still regarded as a top class line-out jumper, but over the last 14 months he became less effective in that component of the game with him calling less and less balls to come to him in line-outs.   
The question remains- can the Springboks afford to have a player substantially reducing the functioning of the Tight 5 any further?   I believe that he is at this stage a handicap affecting negatively the team inasmuch  they have lost Tight 5 competitiveness as a result of Matfield's selection.  Without being at least competitive - the teams chances to win games has been put in jeopardy by the continued selection as a lock.                                           -   

 Well said Mike but I think everyone now knows how pap victor is. it took me years to educate folk on the matter and with Moz and one or two others the task is not yet complete. Your assistance in the matter has been great. Ditto snapster who once he realsied wee matfiled was such asmal guy had his eyes opened and started to actually watch whta wee victor actually did on the filed of play.Sorry we also have that well known villain JW singing matfiled's praise. Worse even than Mitchells take on the ARGIE sCRUMMING.  Glad Tank and De villiers have set the record straight.All very satisfactory! 

 Beeno: I can't support all the Bok players in my role as the"loyal opposition" so some may disagree with who I choose to support but surely appreciate my role.  Bok fans are so divided I am happy to offer clarity where clarity is needed 

 The truth is NO, NO, NO.
He is a has been and in my estimation was always overrated.His play outside line-outs was always lacking, and he never was a locks in the Frik du Preez mould.
Bakkies was never acknowledged as the true lock while teaming up with him...pity because he was the power in the second row and loose play.

His play outside the lineout is superb...one of the best ball handlers in the game. And an outstanding open field tackler.....his goal line tackle on Mathew Tait in the WC final was definitely a try saver, quite possibly a WC saver.

The greatest lock of our time.

 Mike,        The JOKER has returned.
        He evidently never saw or heard of a player called Andrews.        He was what most rugby followers and players call a LOCK.        
       The greatest overrated lock of out time, yep....Victor "Stringbean" Matfield.

Yes you are back aren't you Farthur. Just in time for a nice helping of egg....our forwards were way better today with Matfield's skills and leadership.

 What skills and leadership Matfield has shown since his return to play for the Springboks have been clearly reflected in the performance of the team and the nbumber of games won and lost by them.  This is another win on the positive margin -  but is still not of any real value in the broader context of things - especially in respect of performance of the Tight 5.
Just as a reminder.   When Flippie came on yesterday in the place of Matfield and Du Toit replaced Alberts - the performance of the forwards were enhanced in the game yesterday.  The two old ones were adequate - the younger players much more effective.      
Matfield remains a liability in the Tight 5 whenever he plays and no amount of ramblings by Dr Goebbels will change that.     

 OK the tries were scored because Matfield and Alberts was on the field of play and they made such a stalwart contribution to the Tight 5/  Matfield was just about average in performance and so was Alberts - nothing to eat anything about - that is a fact.
Matfield's contribution to Tight 5 play was absent and that remains a fact of life.  Alberts was effectively below par in ball carries territory gain and he was fairly innocuous on the field of play.  FACTS.
Your praise-singing was just that - mostly outrageously overstated.  Admit that you are a fool that support a weak lock as a solution to our problems and Matfield is still contributing to our Tight 5 being below par in competitiveness.  A number of ex-locks have pointed that out - but you are too bloody stupid to realize that.  
By the way - stupid - De Jager scored a try himself through a strong ball carry in traffic - but you lied about his contribution.  He scored a try - he was not only on the field of play.  Get the difference - idiot?   

Lomp totally marginalized our most powerful forward with his self serving calls....Victor allowed etzebeth to play his natural role. I tried to explain this last week....now Victor has drawn you a picture. Try to learn you old sot. 

But say Pervert, explain to us again how Victor weakened our scrum...hahaha.

 Because pour "explanation" was riddled with lies - it was not of any use whatsoever.  
You did not realize that the game plan followed last week was tried twice yesterday - that is to break around the back of the line and Burger taking the balls to make it possible.  So they tried it today twice, but it did not work because Matfield is too weak and Alberts to ineffective in ball carries to make it work.   So instead of calling the ball to go to Burger 4 times like De Jafer did - Matfield did it only twice and the other two balls he called to go to Etzebeth.
If you are stupid enough to believe that line-out jumps are the only thing a lock must do - you are welcome to your idiocy.   Etzebeth was much more active and not lethargic as he was last week.    

You want details? Good luck! I've been asking for them for years. 

 DF
You are a funny guy and really enjoyable on the site - you are just impossibly biased - your comrade in arms is just plain and simple a liar.  

 Moart
I gave you the stats on the last three matches of Matfield compared to the last three games of De Jager and the latter confirmed that Matfield is weak in the Tight 5 play.  he is a weakling at 105 kgs and that is none fact you keep on forgetting.  
We have lost our competitiveness in thw Tight 5 since the return of Matfield.  There has been repeated statements bout it by experts - but you keep insisting they are all fools and you are correct.  
it is not only in scrums that we are weaker it is in all facets of Tight 5 play.  

Oh sure the scrums were weaker....keep digging you old fruit.  

 Ther scrums has been weaker throughout the past year whenever Matfield played - when eh does not it was a mixture of Jannie. Steenkamp and Beast - like large year against Argentina.   However, on the whole Matfield was a disaster as a lock in virtually tests he played in.   He is physical-deficient and you are an absolute idiot if cannot see that with your own eyes.   
If you did not see how Sanchez tackled him back by meters nothing will you convince you about that one.  Hell - a flyhalf tackling back a o lock, I have never seen that before in any rugby.

 Mike,        Best thing to do is avoid the old f..ts comments.        Not worth the time or energy.
        Just watched the Arg/SA test for the second time and all I can say is that if that is the best we can do then the All Blacks must be celebrating big time.        The Springboks are for sure not in the same league as the All Blacks.        Also with the Boks rated at #5 in world rugby the big slide will continue under Meyer/Matfield and the guy from the USA.           Cheers for now.

 AJ
My problem is the same as what you said about that test.  Mozart and DF shouts and screams about how wonderful Matfield and Alberts were and what a wonderful contribution they made in the test, but after viewing the game a second time myself I cannot see how that praise-singing  holds water.
What I saw of the team as a whole was a very average performance with a few outstanding players.   one of the latter few was definitely Lambie whose decision-making was sound and played a key role in the game.  The Springboks did not get enough gast balls from breakdowns and that inhibited the backline.
As to matfield is concerned I looked at his performance during the game and it was very, very average.   There was nothing wonderful or spectacular in his performance and I think - if we look over the series thus far there was no indication yesterday that he was better than De Jager was consistently in other matches played.  Matter of fact Matfield did not show any sign whatsoever of making any contribution to Tight 5 play - in my opinion a serious requirements from locks.    
To a large extent the same can be said of Alberts.  He was solid - but no better than other 7's would have been.   His ball carries was ineffective and non-productive and he did not do anything and made no contribution to ball protection and recovery.   To claim that he is the answer to our loosie requirement and then hammer the need for ball protection and recovery in the same breath is definitely silly.  I think that in essence Du Toit with a very limited playing time was in fact more effective than Alberts were throughout the time he spent on the field of play.
I m afraid I share your point of view - we are not going to make nay real headway in the WC and the reason is  there are too many below par players in the squad players selected on the basis of reputation without regard to actual sustained performance.  Once we are rid of the Pienaar, Alberts. Matfield and Kirchner type of p layers - we will do much better,  I am also afraid we might end up with a gamble in Fourie du Preez.  There is no indication that he can still perform the way he used to do and I do not think gamble selections are the way to go.
Just one observation about the game after seeing it a second time - was Pienaar not part of the reason why the backline was substantially neutralized?   He did one good thing that any other reasonable scrummie would have done - namely that pass to Habana.  For the rest he was slow in passing and that kick over the dead ball line and the loss of possession when he should have scored a try were school boy errors not expected from a Springbok.   One thing that was clear is that a try would have been scored if Reinach or De Klerk received the ball he received and then messed up the try-scoring effort.
    
             

I'd say it was.
Lineouts were pretty much flawless, we actually challenged the Argie lineout instead of giving them training field quality ball off that phase, scrums were solid so can't fault him there, didn't miss a tackle, no coincidence he was involved in the run up to Mvovos try and led with assuredness.
Eben seems to thrive when partnered with him. Perfect lock combo with a heady technical #5 and an absolute powerhouse #4.
Lood has been much better this year and should probably be our bench cover. Credit to him, he exceeded my expectations and definitely has improved with more consistent performances.

Agreed Matey. I'm not sure if I'd play Lomp or Flip Flop as the sub.  If Stephanie is on the bench for Alberts I'd say Flip might be the better option

 Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha - standard Dr Goebbels rubbish.   

Ok Ok Ok!Come hell or high water Skinny Victoria is going to the RWC, even in a body bag Meyer would take him.What the F*ck did FlipFloppie do that Lood couldnt with his eyes closed and one broken leg????  

 MB
Thi8s is the type of tripe we get on this site from certain members.  They hate certin players with a vengeance - so they come up with all kinds of BS.  The only way one can look at it - is to laugh at rank stupidity, to argue with them is useless.  
The best response to the idiots is to laugh at them or indicate BS as a comment on their idiocies.     

 
Watching the poor Matfield thud to the ground after Sanchez sorted him out brought roars of laughter in my home on Saturday.

That was more than enough to confirm just how useless he really is.

He was once a great ... a decade ago ... now he's an embarrassment.

A silly old man who thinks he can still keep up with the youngsters.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!

 CleanCut

Status: Senior player
Posts: 2673 RE: Matfield - Was his return worthwhile?
August 17, 2015, 12:58:59  
Watching the poor Matfield thud to the ground after Sanchez sorted him out brought roars of laughter in my home on Saturday.

I seem to recall another "useless plodder" in a no 10 jersey who did the same to wonder boy Retallick.......

Touche'  

 This is the greatest lot of BS I have seen for years.  The useless and non-grunt Matfield a week ago would have caused a bigger loss.   On Saturday Dr Goebbels  ignored the Sanchez tackle on Matfield that nearly cut him in half because he did not wish to see it.  And Ceradunce came up with one historic moment - the only one - in the life of poor Morne as an excuse for the poor show of bodily strength by Matfield.  The two things that is different in the Ceradunce BS story is that 
*   Matfield carried the ball and was tackled by the flyhalf; and
*   Morne took the AB's by absolute surprise by carrying the ball and Retallick went high for him and got brushed off badly.
Spot the difference - or is it going over the head of the three village idiots?  

 Nee man ouens!  All my things are packed in the Land Rover I am just about to go back to the site when I read this lot.
When one does not like a player you have that right but to dig all kinds of gannas out of the drain to smear the player with you end up making a spectacle of yourself.
Not liking a player does not give you the right to talk stront about the player.  For all those guys who actually played lock and understand the intricacies of the position, give some concrete statistical facts and evidence to back up your statements.  I am not talking about my daddy, that Davis guy who left my mother here in the Motherwell location and ran away to England because he has been known to twist the facts and we mos all know he's a prokerower from hell.
Every tom dick and seedling seller are always on about the guys weight - is this rugby or a weightlifting competition.  If you played lock at national or international level, then I apologise profusely (it still needs to be proven though) else without facts or stats yours is but one of the many rants with no basis.Just look at the ludicrous names my daddy cites as being better than Matfield - it seems all the professional coaches and selectors know less than a hand full of anonymous posters on here.
Nee man - if you think a player is k@k say so like "I think player XYZ is k@k because bla, bla bla "  The way you okes are putting it it sounds like you are the authority on the issue - and we all know none of us are, we are just all supporters.  But some okes have an agenda to pick on a player and never acknowledge when he does something correct.  The thing of 100% is a myth I tell you.  Lood has some good qualities but some are not up to standard etc....Matfield will never be a 100% lock but he brought some calmness and his leadership seems better than the afpoot hoender Jean.
Now, my diesel Landie is lekker warm and I am on my way to the site ..till the weekend ouens.
Salaam!  Allah be with you all!

Bwhaaaahaaaaa if Matfield had played against the Argies in Durbs, we would not have lost..........wow