Mozart's favourite Victor Matfield

How many games did Matfield get man of the match in the SuperXV this year? Lots, by many writers in OZ, SA and NZ. 
He is the best lineout forward and kick off forward in the world- and a decent scrummager.These are the core functions of a number 5 lock- and how a number 5 lock should be measured in performance.
If a heart surgeon could transplant a heart, but was not good at fixing a broken toilet- is he good at his job or not?
Other secondary factors are general forward play like carries, tackling, rucking, mauling.  . Matfield is not strong in contact but he never has been. He is a bit like a New Zealand lock in that his his work rate is more like a loosie than a tight forward. He is fast and mobile and often at the rucks before the loosies.
South Africa has big loosies to burn, so having a number 5 lock that is strong in his core functions is fine, and plays more like a loossie in secondary funtions.
If experts in the game were asked, I think many of them would say that Matfield is still international level- as a specialist number 5

 Sharkbok
In a sense you are right and he is good in line outs - granted.  But the way Matfield plays in other aspects of lock play is really not up to standard.  It showed up last week when two player carrying balls just brisush him off.  He is also not a strong ball carrier in traffic and definitely not strong in scrumming and rolling mauls - he never was that throughout his career.
The Bulls always seems t have scrumming problems and recently also the Springboks.  There is no way that Matfield is nt part of that problem.  Most of the roblems in the case of both the Bul;ls and the Springboks is on the loose head side - where Matfield is scrumming - so it makes me wonder why it happens.   In the world game - where Matfield and Bakkies Botha were the locks - the scrumming was extremely poor.  There was one incident where there clearly was strong words being spoken by the props in talking to both locks.
Personally I feel that Matfield gets too much credit for line out play - and the writers and commentators who give the MOM awards are too influenced by that and not looking critically at his Tight 5 contribution deficiencies.  It is going to cost us dearly in the RC  where his physical deficiencies are going to be used by the opposition teams. .         

 Back to the scrumming Oom....tell us which were the Bools last weekend.
8 won, 2 lost (80.0%)Scrums on own feed5 won, 0 lost (100.0%)10 won, 7 lost (58.8%)Lineouts on own throw14 won, 1 lost (93.3%)

 Mozart
What about all the scrum penalties against the Bulls in the past season?  They were regularly penalized and mostly on the loose head side.    You talk about line outs, line outs, line outs - zero else.  That is not what the whole game of rugby is about - or is it in your book.  The individual stats indicted 12 line outs won on own throw and  not 15 as alleged by you - of those Willemse won 5,  Matfield 4, Hattingh 2 and Greyling 1.  So Matfield not even in the case of your example was the sole reason for the line out wins.  There were in fact 16 line out wins - 4 on opposition throw-ins, of which Matfield accounted for 3 and Willemse for 1.   So in the game Matfield won less than half of all line out takes.   
If I am not wrong - did the Bulls not lost the game by 16-0?   And did the emdia not say that the Bulls locks were out-muscled by the Stormers locks - two rookies at that?   
In any event - the score showed that although the Bulls won the line out battle - they were comprehensively beaten - showing that line out wins does not necessarily lead to game wins.    The more important part is what happens in the rest of the game - and that is where part f the reason was  "that the Bulls locks were out-muscled by the Stormers locks"    
So try again - your last effort was singularly unconvincing and proved ZERO. 

 Sharkbok says:He is the best lineout forward and kick off forward in the world- and a decent scrummager.These are the core functions of a number 5 lock- and how a number 5 lock should be measured in performance.
Matfield is not strong in contact but he never has been. He is a bit like a New Zealand lock in that his his work rate is more like a loosie than a tight forward. He is fast and mobile and often at the rucks before the loosies.

What does one make of this nonsense. The core function of a lock includes being a physical presence at rucks and mauls. Being able to dirve the ball up a bit, being able to knock back opposing forwards in the tackle, Using strength to barge over the try line. Matfield cant knock back opposition backline players!You say he is weak in contact but a decent scummager. BWahahahahaha. Matfield was switched to scrum behind the loosehead simply because he was a pap scrummager and Beast is strong so more likely to cope! The contribution of locks in a scrum is very important. Yet you want to argue a man 3 kgs heavier than Brusssouw makes a decent scrummager and is what we want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any idea that nz play locks like matfiled 106 kg - at best - must be dismissed out of hand. Retardlick and Whitelock while not being physically the size of Etzebeth or Loodt are a resaonable size. wiki gives whitelock at 114 - light for a lock these days. Retardlick at 121 kg - was 117 kg but has bulked up - why one asks if you are a misguided matfiled groupie! Bwahahhahahahaha 
Name me a decent rugby nation playing a lock at 106 kg. Name me a Super 15 side playing a 106 kg lock.Do even first team club sides field locks at 106kg! Upper body strength - hahahahahahha. 
Matfiled is a disaster for Bok rugby. He turns our tight five into a tight 4.  Even his forte the lineout is way over hyped as Mike rightly observes. Give me stats on matfiled's steal per lineout in the RC/tri nations. Loodt and Etzebeth will do just fine in the lineouts. Ditto Du Toit, Willemse, Bekker etc etc.Always remember the following words:Sean Fitzpatrick - our competitive advantage is our big athletic men. The idea our locks are not mobile is also silly.The great Bakkies Botha (Himself fast enough in his younger days to play 7) - Victor doesnt always play in the backline.
matfiled's singular achievement is to fool his groupies. The media are on his side as they love to create legends. For years it was big victor  - bwahahahahaha - and many were fooled and shocked when wee matfiled revealed the truth about his weight. I was not.  
Then it was all about what a lineout ace he was. Meanwhile nz were laughing their heads off quietly at our rank stupidity. Even now the subterfuge goes on. His weight on TV is given at 110 kg to try and give it vaguely some respectability. Sad to say the gullible suck it all up. Its hard to admit you have been conned all these years. The way out would simply be to say he is over the hill.  Fact is he never was on the hill at all.
He is simply the papest lock ever to play international rugby. Prove me wrong. Name me a lock as pap as matfiled. Just one.

 Mike your point about lineouts is spot on. They are important but dont overide everything else. Loodt and Etzebeth are excellent lineout forwards. The fact is quality international locks take their lineout ball regularly and steals dont happen that often. Usually it happens becuase the hooker fouls up the throw in.
To build a case for matfiled's inclusion around the lineout is crazy. Look also at the quantity and quality of tackles Loodt put versus matfiled. Look who got man of the match.
Away with matfiled. L et's hope will will never see his likes again in a Bok jersey.Wake up Meyer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Bakkies carried a double workload for years
I doubt rooitwit actually did a word search - he is just making things up.

@Beenbag- A number 4 lock and number 5 lock are different positions, just like a number 6 flank and number 7 flank are different positions.  
A number 6 flank can be much smaller, look at Hooper for the Wartahs and Wallabies.A number 6 role it is more important to compete at the breakdown while a number 7 is more important to be a ball carrier.  
The number 4 lock is the enforcer, and the number 5 lock is the athlete that jumps at lineouts and kick offs.
Brodie Retalick is NZ closest thing to an enforcer they have, with Sam White lock the athlete that jumps at lineouts and kick offs. 
Look at John Eales and Ian Jones for the Wallabies and All Blacks respectively. Both were in the mould of Matfield. More athletic type of locks that can jump high- which is the key requirement for a number 5 lock- at lineouts and kick offs. 
John Eales used to jump in front of the goal post to catch penalties or was it conversions. It is easier to pick up more athletic locks than the brutes that play at 4. 
For a number 5 lock the ability in the lineouts and kicks offs is more important than just physical presence. Anyway many of the best bok driving mauls are when Matfield catches in the lineout and carries with the support of his team mates.
I doubt Matfield weighs 106kg, more like 112kg or therebouts

 Sahrkbok when will you wake up. Matfiled siad publickly ythat his best playing weight was between 106 and 108 nkg.when he reitired and meyer was talking to him about a come back it was said then that he would need to beef up as his weight had dropped to 102 kg. Secondly use your eyes. Note the powder puff nature of his play.
Another point John Eales was a big lock especially for those days. Weighed in at 119 kg! 
Ian Jones was I agree much lighter at 104 kg. But that was also years ago. Big locks today are coming in at 120 kg plus and they are mobile - witness Etzebeth and Loodt and even retardlick at 121 kg
Little fellows like matfiled dont paly lock these days. 106 kg is getting light for a flanker. Number 6 flanks are sometimes smaller. Number 7 and 8 loosiesa re often well over 110 kg.
why give up physicality so needed in tight forards for no reason at all. 
Away with the show pony he has fooled his groupeis but his days are over - never were really.Sharkbok these days you dont have to be able jump high to be a lock . You are lifted by your props. That is why Keegan Daniel was used so often by the Sharks. Personally I dont believe locks should be lifted we should go back to the purer days of old where ability to jump was crucial. Today that ability is not as crucial.
Tight five dominance is a key requirement of the modern game as it always has been. We surrender it at our peril simply because our backline play lags that of Nz and OZ in terms of skills. I see some progress but we are not there yet.
matfiled is an unmitigated disaster for both the Bulle and Boks. 

  Sharkbok
Matfield himself sid in his book that his playing weight always have been in teh range of 106 to 108 kgs - never more.  Looking at his recent photo in swimming trunks it looks more like he is even less than 106 kgs - he really is a beanpole.   It may be easier to pick up lighter players - but that really is debatable.  A stronger lock with good jumping ability is equally easy to pick up.  
Last year the Springboks played Flippie at 5 and he is even heavier than Etzebeth and not as tall.   
Beeno is correct - most decent locks playing at 5 would take the same number of line outs as Matfild does and be stronger in that process.  From a driving maukl perspective that is definitely the case.  
My problem with Matfield is not his line out performances - I have no quarrel with that.  It is what happens after the line out jump and in other forms of Tight 5 play that bothers me.  That is where physical strength comes in.   In scrumming, in rolling mauls, in ball carries in traffic and in effective tackling by the locks - that is where the problem really lies.   Because of the initial observation about him being insufficient in that omponent of the game - that I watched him carefully since his return to play for the Bulls and that is where I found that -
*   his roll in rolling mauls is negligible - even if he is in the center of mauls he is pushed aside with ease by the opposing players - often enough falling outside of the maul and getting up to join the maul again;
*   He has never once being able to protect and/or recover breakdown balls and is merely pushed aside by the opposition players who recovers the balls or cause penalties for their side;
*   His ball carries in traffic is non-existent - he is routinely tackled by the first defender and goes straight down - as a result of which he has to hang onto balls and has been penalized for that problem or the ball is recovered by opposition players;
*   There is no evidence indicating strong tackling on his part - in most cases his tackles result in the tackled player moving between one and three meters forward before he comes down finally and in some cases (like happened twice in the Stormers game) he is just brushed aside by opposition players - the main problem being that the opposition remains in going forward mode and is not effectively stopped.
Matfield always loved moonlighting in the backline - but that was at a stage where the rest of the SA Tight 5 monopolize ball possession in games and he could then carry balls in space - that really does not happen anymore.
I did notice that there was another tendency in the 4 games played in June.  Matfield was quite good in keeping up with the pace in the first two games - during the third game he was noticeable in the first half  - while in the second half of the third game and in the fourth game he went completely quiet and was hardly noticeable at all or noticeable for all the wrong reasons.  He  obviously ran out of steam.
Playing Matfield at lock purely because of his line out play is going to put our Tight 5 under tremendous pressure and will cost us the advantage we used to have in that department.   
Incidentally I met Jones after a test at Kings Park and he was a beanpole - but he was much more active and faster than Matfield is nowadays.  However - that was nearly 20 years ago and those days it was common to have lighter weight locks than the case is nowadays.    The changes in player weight,  size and physical strengh have gone up massively over the past two decades.   Jonah Lomu was an exceoption in 1995 - now there are a dozen players of his size and strength playing in backlines all over the world.   The same applies even more so to forwards.     
                   

 Mozart
I feel sorry for you - you are so prejudiced in favour of Matfield that you fail to even notice where things go wrong with him in a team. 
The problem is that Meyer - being a pal of Matfield -  will select him - and will find out afterwards where things went wrong.   I am really afraid that the "Pap" Matfield will be found out too late and we will be losing matches int eh CR which we should have w on.    

 My point is this - Meyer is not faultless - he has made selection mistakes in the past - and he will make them in future as well.  One of his mistakes will prove to be Matfield.
I think De Villiers is telling Meyer that he is unhappy about the scrumming and where the fault lies - but Meyer thinks it can be corrected - but it will not with a player like Matfield at lock.  
There is a problem that Meyer had all along - and that is his tendency to select players with whom he is familiar - and Matfield is one of those.  It is not unique in any event.  White is familiar with Francois Steyn and he keeps on selecting him despite indications - proven by stats as well - that he is a negative insofar as the team is concerned.   
Matfield did not have altogether good games in tests thus far - despite the poor opposition - he is going to come short against the AB's and  Wallabies - same as Juandre Kruger ultimately did.  

Lineouts are not that important according to the OOM...I have just caught up with this gem. Well I guess if winning is not that important, why worry about lineouts.  

 Listen Mozart
Stop talking tripe - I never ever wrote that line outs are not important.  i said that line outs alone  dies not win matches - there must be follow-ups like rolling mauls and other attacking moves. 
You re talking like you have dementia here - if you read what I said you would not make idiotic remarks like that.
What is evident also is that Matfield is not the only player that takes balls n line outs - one should swear other locks and players never take line outs the way you carry on.    

 Would swear or should swear.....?

 Evil in drag, what's this up the Germans bit of yours?  Fuck the Germans, this is a rugby site - Up the Sharks (But the Waratahs will win it).

Mike old friend, you seem to have all the answers and you are quite sure of the facts.  Why not apply to SARugby to assist Meyer then ALL our problems will go away and we will win all the matches, like the AllBlacks are doing now.  Please man, your country needs you.  By the looks of it, reading your posts you know better than all these stupid professionals and most of the journalists too. 
Just my Daddy knows more than you..My'se Ma sê ok so!

 If you read what I wrote earlier - you would understand what I meant here.   The problem is that even if Matfield wins the line out - his physical strength in mauls is insufficient to enhance the chances of success from mauls.  He is normally forced out of the process by the opposition forwards with ease - he is just not strong enough to be a factor.   
I have seen repeatedly how he was actually forced out of such mauls and landing on the ground beside the mauls - after which he joins the mauls again - normally rather ineffectively.  
My problem really is what Matfield brings to the team other than line outs - and that is the real issue here,    What bothers me is also that most of the line outs Matfield takes will also be taken by other locks as well - so he is not the only lock taking line outs regularly in matches.
In Super 15 thus far this year Lewies in fact took more line outs than Matfield did - and nobody shouts and screams about Lewies.        

Exactly so Dr Moz. 7 painful years watching the phony at work. Enough is enough away with the conman.  
Dont tell me about being repetitive. If you didnt keep lauding matfiled I would have less to rebut. 
At least now some posters are waking up from this delusion. Hope you do to.Send the showman packing!

Most Springbok and even SA SuperXV teams launch their attacks from line outs. 
-In 2013 SuperXV, it seemed that allmost every try was scored from a driving maul from a lineout. -In 2014 OZ/NZ SuperXV teams have been better at countering the maul, and this probably explains why we our teams are sitting at the bottom of the table. 
However our rolling mauls have still been excellent at international level, with many tries scored and penalties conceded. Wales were so sh it scared that they gave away a penalty try and got a player sent off twice with yellow cards for collapsing the mauls
Having the best line out forward in the world ever playing makes sense- given that most of our attacks are from lineouts. (He is also the best receiver of kick offs).
When Matfield catches the ball, typically the maul is built around him and the drive gets going. He makes some good distance before the next player peels off.
The Bok lineout and kickoffs were a shambles last year, and perhaps the main reason  the test to the ABS was lost in SA. Matfield organises the lineout and the kick offs. 


The ratio of tries scored by backline players in the SuperXV is much less than New Zealand or Austalia, 
Our back-lines struggle to get any movements going so we are dependent on getting penalties for line-out and mauling infringements, or scoring tries from the rolling maul.
Or our backs mostly score tries off opposition mistakes, turnovers, counter attacks etc.

 Our line-out last year worse than our opponents in most tests - except the EOYT! Etzebeth hasn't added very much. In fact, we look much more solid at set pieces now that Matfield is back. Etzebeth, Kruger, Bekker added zip.

Juandre Kruger was totally useless at kick offs and Lineouts for the Boks, although he is fine for the Bulls.
The Boks struggled to get the driving maul going last year from the lineouts because every throw was going to the number2 jumper in the front of the lineout- Etzebeth. 
It is easier to get a drive going from the middle, or even the back of a lineout- when the front of the lineout loop around the support the catcher and start the driving maul. 

 If Juandre Kruger was so crap, then WTF did HM keep on playing him? Oh wait....... Brittle Bones was injured.................... again.

 Dim Sun
Are you trying to kid people with your amazing misconceptions again - what a load of crap about Etzebeth.  But we know whence it comes from - the most deluded rugby analyst ever.  What a load of baloney do you mnage to come up with all the time.  

 Doffies
Krugr was crap - he had just about 10% more grunt than the absolutely gruntkess Matfield.    Both are shit poor ball carriers and Kruger was pathetic in the Ellis Park test - among the forwards he and Alberts competed who could be the worst Springbok forward - among the backs the competition was between Morne Steyn and Engelbrecht. 
Allowing the necessary leeway - the forwards worst player of the day was Kruger, the backline one was Morne Steyn.
Doffies  ever heard of the statement made by Meyer that he selected players he was familiar with?   He stuck to some Bulls flops for far too long.    

Actually Juandre had a perfectly good game for the Worlds ....one of the better players. I'd say his way ahead of Lewies at this point, if not quite test class.  

 Mark my words - another ridiculous statement about Kruger,  He has slightly more grunt than Matfoeld - but since Matfield is physically deficient - he definitely is better than Matfield.   That was proven in the World game - so lets leave it at that.
As to comparing him with Lewies is another incoherent comparison.   Kruger played against Matfield in the World game and showed him up.  Kruger has never played against Lewies - who in fact has  better line out record in Super 15 than Matfield.   So how can you really make a statement about who is better Kruger or Lewies.
Kruger failed so badly in the Ellis Park test that Meyer dropped him from the squad for good.  However, before that test your praise songs about Kruger was almost as hysterical as those in respect of Matfield at present.  
You have proofed ont e thing recently insofar as player evaluations are concerned -  GOOLS WILL ALWAYS BE FOOLS.     
   

 I have  "proofed ont e thing"... hehehe...you really shouldn't post when you get up for a leak Oom.