Mozart can you explain to us

Has it ever occurred to you that the player who has least to do with pushing in the maul is the lineout forward who caught the ball. Has it occurred to you that at best the difference one forward could make is at best about 2 per cent in pushing power.
Nice try though.  

 Matfield all of 5 takes no metres gained,  4 tackles missed and 1 penalty conceded...ie useless and a predicted liability.

 Well that was more than twice the lineouts taken by both Aussie locks combined. But of course they were forced to throw short, where Etzebeth stole the ball or long....just to avoid Matfield.  Simmons his direct opponent took no balls....now why would that be I wonder. Man you are thick.

 Ah so Etzebeth taking 2 steals was down to the aussies avoiding matfield....bwhaaahaaaaa
Moffie you really are a card....let me guess the 4 missed tackles was old victor lulling the aussies into a false sense of security and the zero metres gained was vic conserving energy for his master class of line out deception

Yes in part. As for the  4 missed tackles in 17 attempts, it happens when you put yourself about. Still it trumps Loods six missed tackles in twelve attempts in Salta.  But shame he tried hard.

 Mozart
Crap - the player who takes the ball in the line out is the player who organisea and directs the rolling maul.   He  has to be a physically strong guy and lend his weight to the movemoment forward and should not be pushed out of the maul or keeled over backewards.
You have not answered the question though - why was there no rolling mauls by the Springboks on  Saturday\/
Now lets look at the line out issue - there were oin total 21 line outs on Saturday. Of  those 13 was  on S A throw ins and 8 by the Aussies.   Of the 8 two was taken by Etzebeth - leaving only 6 for the other players.   Now lets get back to the 13 - Matfield only called  5 to go to hiim - 6 to Etzebeth and 2 to other players.   Matfield took 4 line outs jumping at the normal 5 position and 1 in front when Etzebeth was replaced.   
Matfield was not really all that effective in line outs and to say that the Aussies avoided throwing balls at there  no 5 lock because of Matfield is a  weirdo.   Of the 8 throw-ins they had to make 4 went to their no 4 lock - one to the prop standing in front of the line out and three went to their loosies. stading 1 place behind Matfield.  He never once tried to jump to interfere in the process. 
None of the 5 line out takes would not have been taken by another lock - so sicne Matfield did squat in the rest of the game - what real purpose did he serve on Saturday? 
Incidentally those tackles he did make was all weak and the players went forwa rd in the tackle - but he had his fair share of missed tackles - 4 missed tackles out of 7 attempts are not something to be proud about.   
       
    

Organizes and directs and is initially facing backwards. Look believe what you like, it really doesn't matter. If you want Matfield to be awful just assume that's true. If you want Lood not to have missed half his tackles, just assume that's true. What you believe isn't even of consequence on this Board let alone the world. With no malice I have to say I find you repetitive and boring. Why don't you go and stalk somebody else.

 Mozart
Avpid giving an answer - so much like you.  Matfield was bloody poor on Saturday and that is a fact - he produced nothing of substance.   It will be worse against the All Blacks and that is a fact as well.
There are very few real Matfield edherents on this site - you and cerddyne makes about the total.   The rest thinks he is way past it and should not eb in the squad.  
What you present on this site is a mixture of deception and poor rugby knowledge - I do not find it boring - I fiind it hilarious that somepone who says he knows the sport can come up with the conclusions you rrive at.  

 Here we have a classicl case -  Mozart is an absolute Matfield supporter - Matfield ius wonderful - h can do nothing wrong.   It is pointed out to Mozart that there ws no driving mauls by the Springboks on  Saturday - a fter the Boks scored a try from such a maul in  Salta.
Real qustion is did the presence of Matfield play a role in this case.   First response - the catcher of the ball carries no responsibility in the maul and does not add thrust  t the maul.  However, what he does not realize is that the catcher should be strong on his feet and not easily keeled over backwards while getting the maul going.   Once the maul is going forward the catcher directs the maul.   
Matfield took 5 line outs on Saturday - one he was interfered with in the air and Simmons was penalized.  Twice he came down to ground and was keeled over before any maul could start and two cases he passd the ball to the scrummie - so no riving mauls.
Instead of dealing with the issue at hand Mozart went on a s houting scream about De Jager missing tackles in the  Salta game - no response about the total absence of driving mauls in the Perth test.   A vigorous defense amounted to me being alone in discrediting Matfield.   " What you believe isn't even of consequence on this Board let alone the world"
The problem remains - Matfield played no role in driving mauls in the June tests and also in Super 15 fpor the Bulls - even in cases were he was trying to start a rolling maul he is pushed out of it with ease and lands on the ground ebside the maul.   
The qquestion remains - is the roolling mauls by the  Springboks eliminated by Matfield as a lock and a critical part of the ight  5 of the Springboks?  I for one beluieve it is sacrificed because Matfield at present does not have the physicaluity to be involved. .  One weapon goone and in exchamnge we get 5 line out catches.