Matfield was missed against Argentina

 Sharkbok
The problem was not the line outs - the problem remains Matfield's lack of physicality in the Tight 5.   I believe if he was playing under conditions like what it was on Saturday - we would have lost the test.   He is worse than bakkies Botha and Bakkies Bothja was by far the worse lock in all four teams that played on Saturday.    Reason : he produced nothing - not in line outs and not in other activities around the field of play.   
We struggled in the scrums - but with Matfield there it would have been an outright disaster.   He is physically not up to standard anymore.        

Trouble is Lomp was beaten for the ball by his opponent jumping forwards. That should never happen to a locks who is essentially a 4 jumper. Matfield at 5 and Etzebeth at 4 is the ticket. Really Lomp was very passive the whole game, it's a pity HM didn't go with Willemse, a far more aggressive player. 

 If pap matfield had been on board the argies would have really taken our scrum apart,  they came close to doing that with real locks on board.
But don't fret wee matfield will be back for oz and nz and we will be on the receiving end of a smack and ignorant comments that matfield was missed will leave egg on your ignorant face.
To pass comment on line outs in those atrouscious conditions smacks not only of stupidity but blind ignorance. Wake up sharktwat geez you are dumb

 How many line outs did the Springboks not take on Saturday?   As far as I know 2 = and that is confirm by ESPNscrum.    Both were lost by the no 4 jumper  - one by Botha and one by Etzebeth.   That loss was cancelled out - because Etzebeth also took a line out ball on an opposition throw in.   
De Jager was jumping at no 5 - not at number 4.  That is a fact as well.  I waqs the number 4 jumper of the Pumas who took two throw ins from us - so guess who have egg all over his face again.   
So are you inventing things again - things that did not happen on the field of play?  

 Oops mike I think poor sharktwat has lost all the water in his tank. So lood never lost a line out ball and was strong in contact. 
Lood is the real deal great player with plenty of physicality and massive work rate. He will be a bok great along with etzebeth and PSDT and no thanks to Meyer, willemse should be part of that ride as w ell

Argentina not only won more lineouts, they got ball that was cleaner than the Boks

If Matfield was playing surely the Boks would have had a better lineout and also won some opposition ball. It is not just about balls won or lost, it is about clean ball to get the driving mauls going. It was a very sloppy and clumsy affair. The number 5 lock also calls the lineouts, it is not just catching the ball.

 Bismarck did not have the best day throwing into the lineouts, he made it really difficult for De Jager.

 In your imagination - in reality given the circumstances the line outs was not as bad as you give it out to be.   
It is a wild assumption that Matfield wiould have won balls on opposition throw ins.   In the three tests he played in in June he won 1 ball on opposition throw-in.   If that is the reason to play a player - then we must really think again.   In the test on Saturday we lost two balls on throw-ins.   Both were lost by the player at 4 - and even if Matfield was in that position it would not have been that wonderful.  Botha lost one and Etzebeth the other one.  
The problem is not th line outs - the problem was elsewhere and specifically in the scrumming.   When Botha was replaced our scrumming improved. Matfield is a weak scrumming lock - with him int eh team our scrumming would have disintegrated completely.   
De Jager did call the line outs and there was clearly not as much of a problem as you make it out to be.   If you have watched any games recently - you would have noticed that Matfield was pushed out of the driving mauls and landed on the grass next to the mauls - so their goes our driving mauls with him as well.  Believe me Sharkbok - the man weighs 106 kgs - about 20 kgs less than most locks do nowadays - he just does not have the muscle power in the driving mauls and the scrums to be of consequence. 
However, I think Meyer will pick him and I think he will find out afterwards that it is not working.   I do not think Matfield will be of any value against the Aussies and the All Blacks and will likely just be pushed out of the way by the Pumas as well.          

Correction Lomp did lose a lineout...Etzebeth didnt.  

 Play matfiled  - how totally absurd! Mallet himself says with the ball being so slippery the lineouts were a lottery!Next when its wet like this is would have been disaster to play the wee fellow - 106 kg. Imagine taking on that good Argies pack with a tight 4. Nothing could be more ludicrous.
Again as Mallet corretly said very little can be discerned from this test.
Please Meyer leave the show pony out of the match 23. We cant afford to carry him a moment longer.
Loodt did well and played as a lock. Eben was huge. This is our lock pair.
Given Eben can play both 4 ot 5 there is NO problem re Loodt. Both Loodt and Ebenare brilliant lineout forwards. 
Talk of playing matfiled is madness.

 Mozart
Don't talk craqp again - you were caught about again and that is a fact - look at he ESPN stats - you biased old coot - and see who won the tunrover throws - the number 4 lock  and De Jager was jumping at 5 not 4.   Bukllshitting again and egg all over his face again.
In any event why suddenly do you call De Jager "Lomp"?   You are really the worst insofar as calling players names when you do not like them.   Incidentally the only "lomp" Springbok I have seen for years was Alberts - watch out for the incident immediately before Messam's first try at Ellis Park last year, where Alberts instead of trying to recover tackle ball from Aaron Smith, fell over his own feet.   That was "lomp".
Because bias is the basis for player evaluation,  you are the most stupid assessor of player performance evaluation I have ever seen.  

 
Selecting a player out of position and expecting him to produce a world class performance is absurd.

One could see De Jager was uncomfortable right from the start.

A quality coach would never have put a newby like Loodt in that position to begin with ... especially not so damn early in his international career.

Question is ... did this "experiment" hurt Loodt's confidence. I hope not.

The blame should fall on Meyer's shoulder and Meyer's shoulders alone.

He's a useless coach and as time passes us by so it becomes more and more evident.

Bring back Mallet.

 Who should we have had in place of Lood?

 
I would have kept Loodt at 4 and started with Etsebeth at 5.

Bakkies was useless. His inclusion just confused everyone.

Willemse on the bench. as lock cover.

So you play our best lock out of position to play Lomp in position. There's bright for you.

Lomp actually was pretty ineffective....there was no sense he was trying to gain ascendancy. You got that in spades when Etzebeth came on....a bit of niggle, a bit of agg ression. Lomp is one of HM's less smart moves....Willemse is a huge unit with the desire to be in combat. Lomp is more of a flat track bully.

 Willemse is also a great prospect. We are very fortunate to have these three. Also there is Du Toit and Jaque Du Plessis as lock propspects. 

At the moment, SA has a dearth of quality locks.
From Etsebeth to PSD... Lood, Lewies, Bressler and Willemse....
There is no shortage.
But I do feel that Matfield could contribute off the bench for the next year.
His experience within the camp cannot be underestimated.

 Mozart as per always has gone "lomp" in the brain.

Ummmm . . . Chippo . . . the word "dearth" means a "shortage".

Your comment would make a lot more sense if you changed the word "dearth" to "surfeit" or "glut".

 Who says ou roooitwit cant be helpful !

 
Yes Dumbass ... I would most definitely play my best lock out of position rather than expose a newby to that kind of pressure.

Especially seeing as my "best lock" can play comfortably at 5.

Uh-Duh!!!

Try to keep up ... Dumbass!!!