FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Mozart - just a confirmation needed

Mozart - just a confirmation needed

Started by clevermike20 REPLIES356 VIEWS· 22 Dec 2014, 07:27
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Dec 2014, 07:27
#1
22 Dec 2014, 07:27#1

Did you or did you not stated as a fact that the Bulls turnaround in their Super 15 season came about because of the inclusion of Matfield in their team?


If so - can you pleae indicate what match did Matfield play in when the  turnaround started?

SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
22 Dec 2014, 12:01
#2
22 Dec 2014, 12:01#2
The Bulls are fucked this year......they have lost Willemse and will play useless Matfield at lock......they are stumped.
They have brought in Nkanyane, Labascagne and Strauss.......thats no good when they dont have locks.
Their best bet is to move Jacques du Plessis to 5 and find a real 4 amongst their youngsters.......monster U19 Jason Jenkins might be the answer. This lad played provincial schools cricket as an allrounder and had to choose between rugby and cricket......2.02m and 125kg
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
22 Dec 2014, 12:05
#3
22 Dec 2014, 12:05#3
Flip and Jaque will be fine but wee matfield is a severe handicap.
SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
22 Dec 2014, 12:21
#4
22 Dec 2014, 12:21#4
Flip is stuffed
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Dec 2014, 13:02
#5
22 Dec 2014, 13:02#5
 Sffex
What about Nicolaas Janse Van Rensburg - he is twice the player Matfild is?
DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
22 Dec 2014, 13:06
#6
22 Dec 2014, 13:06#6

Mark my words

 

The Bulls will take both trophies this year

 

 

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Dec 2014, 15:32
#7
22 Dec 2014, 15:32#7
DA
They made some good buys from the Cheetahs - but the problem is they do have problems with their props ad then Matfield as negatives.   
They have a slim chance - but the chance is limited and will depend on how they play their matches.   Hopefuly thye must gt rid of the cponcept of playing a tight 4 in games - best advoive - get rid of Matfield.      
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2014, 16:27
#8
22 Dec 2014, 16:27#8

I'd say Victor turned around their season after the first two games they lost....Matfield became a starter and they won their next 3  matches and drew with the Chiefs.

 

For the whole season the Bools won 7 matches.....Victor started in  in every one of those matches. The Bools never won when Victor didn't start.

 

 

In the matches he didn't start the Bools were 0 and 4. In the matches he did start they were 7.5 and 4.5. He lifted the Bools from 0% winning team when he didn't start to a 62.5% team.

 

I exclude matches where he came on as a sub, not the same thing as building a match plan around his presence. Some of this also runs with home advantage. That said of the 4 matches the Bools lost under Victor, three were narrow losses in NZ/OZ.

 

I think it's fair to say the only poor game the Bools played with Victor starting was against the Mighty Stormers....very understandable.

 

Trust that helps.

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Dec 2014, 16:54
#9
22 Dec 2014, 16:54#9
 Balls Mozart.  Martfield came on from the ebnch in the first game t he Bulls played and played for nearly a full half - h e royally buggered up in that game - fact.    First scrum cpollapsed after that did not ahppen all game to that point.   First line-out  he got penalized for going for the opposition player and not the ball.   
He played 40 minutes in the enxt game and was equally poor.   There is no way that he had any impact whatsoever on teh turnaound in the Bulls performances - zilch.   Him starting - instead of comuing from the ebnch and h aving that massive an impact is BS.   
What a whole BS story this one.   The matches they won was because they changed their flyhalf - not because Matfield made a notable contribution.   The only contribution he did make was to weaken their Tight 5.    
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2014, 17:03
#10
22 Dec 2014, 17:03#10
I told you OOM, coming off the bench is not the same thing. You asked for the facts....you got them. Be careful what you ask for....game, set and match.  
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Dec 2014, 17:15
#11
22 Dec 2014, 17:15#11
 Mozart
If you believe that - you wil also believe the moon is made of green cheese.   Matfield did not make any impact - in fact the impact was negative.   Game, set and match.
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2014, 17:58
#12
22 Dec 2014, 17:58#12

Is that all you've got....just lamely repeating you claim in the face of all the facts?

SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
22 Dec 2014, 19:23
#13
22 Dec 2014, 19:23#13
Mike Janse v/Rensburg looks good but needs to bulk up to be taken seriously.
He is still a baby so will grow
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Dec 2014, 20:10
#14
22 Dec 2014, 20:10#14
 Mozart
There are no facts - those you quote stemmed from other factors than Matfield - mainly the change of the flyhalf.
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2014, 21:56
#15
22 Dec 2014, 21:56#15
Oh sure....the team without Matfield has no wins.....and with Matfield it wins 62.5% of it's games and he had no effect. Provincial administration levels of stupidity.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
22 Dec 2014, 22:23
#16
22 Dec 2014, 22:23#16
 Fell - but you are dim.  Matfield was in the team from the start - whether in the starting line-up or from the ebnch - which invovles impact players -  he made no impact.
The Bulls changed their flyhalf as dfrom the third game and the backline as a whole started functioning ten times better,   That was what ca used the turnaround - dumbo.  
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
22 Dec 2014, 23:04
#17
22 Dec 2014, 23:04#17

Well nice theory, and given Potgieter and Matfield first started in the same game, hard to disprove. But the first game Matfield didn't play after that....Potgieter was unable to lift the Bools against the Canes. And sadly the Bools with Potgieter had 4 wins, one draw and 6 losses.....nothing like Victor's 62.5% win ratio.

 

So no....we have to discard this second attempt on your part. Perhaps it had something to do with the length of JJ's toe nails?

SA
Saffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
23 Dec 2014, 00:30
#18
23 Dec 2014, 00:30#18
 Matfield added no value at all to the Bulls and added even less to the Boks. The once great player was a complete and utter flop this year and went a long way to contributing to the Boks failing record this year.
How on earth can a test side really challenge with a 37 year old lightweight locks in its ranks? It's ignorance of the highest order that Meyer thinks old Vic is an asset. He is a liability of the highest order only surpassed by the skilless Morne and utterly useless Steenkamp.
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Dec 2014, 01:11
#19
23 Dec 2014, 01:11#19
Matfield was our most consistent lock. And the two games we couldn't scrum , Lomp was in Matfields slot. So much for supposed grunt.
CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
23 Dec 2014, 06:35
#20
23 Dec 2014, 06:35#20
 Matfield has grunt - now that says it all.   He is the most consistent lock and his line-out play goes down test after test and he is tossed out of driving mauls like it is unbelievable.   His ball carries in traffic are near the point of extinction and when he does try he is tackled and gives away penalties.    And he turned the Tight 5 into a Tight 4 - while standing a round in the backlie where whe balls are passed to him  - he opts out and does not go forward to catch the ball.   He is consistent - consistently below par.   
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
23 Dec 2014, 22:33
#21
23 Dec 2014, 22:33#21

I read a lot about Matfield having no grunt. But our scrum was better after Matfield replaced Lomp. Coincidence.....maybe. But it's hard to imagine we would have improved if Matfield provides significantly less shove than a guy like Lomp.

 

And I read how he is knocked back in contact, and then I see the Beast, Lomp, Vermeulen and Etzebeth all being knocked back in contact. It's physics, the body in motion....the runner....produces more force.

 

So until I see some evidence I am going to pay no attention to the hysterics who say Matfield is robbing us of power. It's a theory unsupported by empi rical evidence.

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news