Mozart - the Plank

 Mike the good Dr Moz has a blind spot re wee victor 106 kgs.  The bulls physicality almost paid off. With matfiled at lock no chance.

Well the OOm knew all about Ludeke's selections when he made his prediction that the BOOLS would win the game because of their superior physicality. 

This is the usual transparent deflection by a mope spluttering through the omelette.

 Mozart 
Nice diversion effort -but it does not wash -  I never made a prediction in any game the past weekend - plank.   The point here is different.   The Bulls with Matfield in July was disgustingly poor - without  him they were decidedly better.   That is the point - further proof that he brings nothing to the game.  

 RE: CC Semi-final Teams
October 16, 2014, 16:03:15 Signs are not good for the WP - They will be up against a Tight 5, not a Tight  4 as would have been the case if Matfield played.   

That says it all. Egg city.

 Mozart
Absolutely correct - they did not have Matfield as a handicap and they did better without him than they did in July with him.   I was playing  the fool with beeno with that renark - but was dead serious about Matfield.   If you think that was a prediction - you must have your head read.  
From a Tight 5 performance aspect he may as well not be there - he weakens the Tight 5 to the level of a Tight 4.  That was evident from the improved performance of the Bulls this past weekend compared to the game in July - where Mtfield was a handicap.   Get the message.    

Nice try OOm. But check the Bulls S15 success ratio with Matfield playing vs him not playing. Get the message, stick to facts.  

That is the biggest load of tripe I have seen for years.   The Bulls changed their flyhalf and there was an immediate improvement.   Matfield was not the reason for the improvement dolt - Potgieter was more of a reason and later on Pollard as well.  
AS was cler in the July g ame - Mtfield is a  huge negative for any team.

  Hell - but you are thick.   That kind of percentage means nothing when it comes to certain players - Potgieter's contribution to the games was much bigger in points and otherwise than that of Matfield.   

His contribution was bigger in points....you dont say....the man is the kicker you dope. I take it from that feeble response you have nothing more in your arsenal...that it's strike three again.

 Mozart
Your  feeeble mind on rugby issues cannot prove that Matfield contributed anything  to the team - bar perhaps some line outtakes - which a proper lock would have taken in any event.    What else did he produce since he had -
*   without any grunt whatsoever - did not contribute anything in the Tight 5 phases od play;
*    no ball cariries of note in traffic;
*    stood around in the backline enabling him to make more tackles (quality average to poor) a lock would normally made - but missed of plenty tackles as well.
That type of performance has more negatives than poitives for a lock.   
No lets get back to the idiocy of Mozart.   How many points did Potgieter and later on Pollard roduced in games the Bulls won and how many penalies did Ma tfield gve away ibn the same games?    That will determine who was of greater use -  your idol  Slapgat Matfield  or the two flyhalfs - bearing in mind also the poor kicking performance of  Fouche.   
Anyway in discussing rugby issues with you logic is not a commodity that hs any impact with you.   

 Mozart
Your  feeeble mind on rugby issues cannot prove that Matfield contributed anything  to the team - bar perhaps some line outtakes - which a proper lock would have taken in any event.    What else did he produce since he had -
*   without any grunt whatsoever - did not contribute anything in the Tight 5 phases od play;
*    no ball cariries of note in traffic;
*    stood around in the backline enabling him to make more tackles (quality average to poor) a lock would normally made - but missed of plenty tackles as well.
That type of performance has more negatives than poitives for a lock.   
No lets get back to the idiocy of Mozart.   How many points did Potgieter and later on Pollard roduced in games the Bulls won and how many penalies did Ma tfield gve away ibn the same games?    That will determine who was of greater use -  your idol  Slapgat Matfield  or the two flyhalfs - bearing in mind also the poor kicking performance of  Fouche.   
Anyway in discussing rugby issues with you logic is not a commodity that hs any impact with you.   

What is a line outtake? Fish of the day taken home...hehehe. You talk about proof Oom, but for all your bluster you anti Matfield types have failed to provide one stat, one incident or one aspect of play that proves Matfield isnt physical enough. 
On the contrary our scrumming got better when Matfield returned. Now I think it's probably a coincidence, but it does blow your theory out the water.

 Mozart
Thick as a plank you are - lets face facts you manufacture imaginary stats to prove how good Matfield was and what a difference he amde to the Bulls team - obviouslt everything is balls.
The Bulls played in 16 games of which they won 9 games - drew one game and lost 6 games.   How that equates to a win ratio of 43,75% given by you is  fraudulent and aimed at misleading members of this site.   Matter of fact t he Bulls had a chance to be in the play-offs - but for a dismal 16-0 loss against the staormers - caused sustantially by a dismal performance by Matfield in that critical game.   
Matfield started  in 10 of the  16 games played by the Bulls.   Of those the Bulls won 5 and drew 1.   That suddenly means a win ratio of 58,3%. - what a load of rubbish - the win ratio was 50%.
Then there is the madness of Mozart saying that the replacement of Fouche meant nothing in respect of the Bulls win.    In the nine Bulls victories - points scored by the two flyhalfs (Potgieter and Pollard0 made a  difference in 7 games.   That means that they played  a critical role in the vistories - while the role of Matfield was peripheral at best.   
You claim the differncecame in by the tackles made by Matfield and by his line out takes.   Insifar as his tackles are concerned - he routinely moonlighted in the abckline and made a really substantial number of tackles (73)  but he also missed 8 tackles.   Vuirtually all tackle made range from average to under-par - so he opposition retained the balls when a player was tackled by Matfield.    On average made 7,3 tackles per game played and missed 0,8 tackles per match.    
Nw lets look at the stats of Van der Merwe who played at no 5 when Matfield did not play - ie  in 6 matches.   In those matches Van der Merwe made 50 tackles at an average tackle count of 8,3 tackles per match - which is higher than Matfield's famed tackle ratio of 7,3.   He missed  4 tackles at an average of 0,67 misses per game.    
Matfield took 57 line outs on Bulls throw-ins and stole 9 opposition balls.   In the ten games played the  latter amounted to an average of  5,7 lineouts on own through and 0,9 line-outs on opposition throw-in.   That means that on average rounded off Matfield stole 1 line-out ball per game played.   
Van der Merwe took in 6 matches 26 line out balls - ie an average of 4,3 line outtakes per match played.  Superficially it ould mean that Matfield was massive in line outs - but even that figure ois misleading.   Matfield identified wich players are weak in line-out and then moved his line out position to oppose the weaker plyers and then called the balls to him.  By that means his linre-out takes became inflated.    
To think that 1 or 2 extra line-out takes per game would compensate for the toaltal lack of grunt on the part of Matfielld is lunacy.  
My advice to you is do not try and mislead membes of this site like you are apt to do - stick to facts and don't try and manufactiure misleading info.

Too long to read.  

 Mozart
Too long to read because it contradicted your BS comprehensively.   Why did you invent stats about the Bulls which were completely false?

  9.Bulls()1678136533530838

This may come as a shock to you OOM 7/16 is 43.75%. But I see you have changed your post which had the incorrect Bools stats. Why not just say that you are sorry vs sneaking off like this....and still leaving the accusation up there without the data. Dishonest stuff OOM...once again.

The deep dive OOM.....man where is your sense of honour.  

 clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 13590RE: Mozart - the Plank
October 21, 2014, 12:45:19Matfield identified wich players are weak in line-out and then moved his line out position to oppose the weaker plyers and then called the balls to him.  By that means his linre-out takes became inflated.    


This is smart line out organisation. Putting our best jumper against their weaker jumpers. If that means running to the back of the lineout once the ball is thrown, or otherwise smart play. I cannot see how that makes his lineout takes inflated.
Surely the opposition would never intentionally put their weakest jumpers against Matfield. 
Matfield also moves around at the kick off to ensure he is under the ball when ever possible. 
Although I agree Matfield did not scrum well against Argentina in either game, and he did not add much grunt to the pack on those days ....

SB a friendly heads up, you might want to rethink your last sentence....he didn't play in those games. As I have frequently said, there is zero evidence Matfield is associated with poor Bok scrumming.

 i was kidding about him playing, he got the blame for when he was playing in prior matches actually 

Sharkbok, Moffie doesn't recognize humour. He's too preoccupied with trying to appear right all the time in his inimitable sneering and condescending manner . . . which is quite funny when you consider how often the tiresome old fop gets it hopelessly wrong.

No worries SB I should have caught that.
RooiAAs you poor bugger, in trying to look clever you got the wrong word. Man you just can't stop yourself can you?

inimitable

1. Beyond imitation, surpassing all others, matchless.

Usage notes

Not to be confused with inimicable (“inimical, harmful, hostile”).

You obviously wanted inimicable but weren't educated enough to get there. Game, set and match.

 Mozart
Here are the results of the games played by the Bulls in Super 15 this year:-
Games won    -    7
Lions       -     25- 17Blues       -     28- 22Sharks     -     23 -19 Cheetahs  -     26-21Stormers   -    28-12Brumbies  -     44-23Rebels      -     40-7 
Games Lost    -    8
Sharks     -     31-16Cheetahs  -     15-9Hurricanes  -   25-20Highlander  -   27-20Waratahs   -    19-12Force         -    15-9Lions         -     32-21Stormers    -    16-0
Games Drawn
Chiefs       -     34/34
In checking my list above - I found a mistake in the list I wrote down.  I had two Cheetahs wins - instead of one - and missed out a game lost to the Lions.   Sorry about that - but my calculations were wrong and I admit as such.  
However, I rechecked and the data is as follows.   In the 7 games the Bulls won the points contributed by Potgietr/Pollard accounts for 5 wins - ie the difference between the wniing margin and the points contributed by those two players.
The information on Matfield is as follows:-
Tackles made -  66Tackles missed  -  8
Line ou takes  -   Own throw  -   50                         Opposition   -    9
Matfield started in 9 games so he still verage roiughly the same averages in tackles and line out wins given in my previous calcuations 
The issue is not around the Bullswins or losses - it is about the arguments raised by Mozart that Matfild made a difference to the wwinning of games by the Bulls and thatthe flyhalf change did nothing in that regard.   Mozart is trying to BS us all about it.   How does 2 or 3 extra line out wins and a very average tackle count of average to poor tackles - makes a difference to the team winning or losing.   The lack of grunt of Matfield i notorious and his contribution to the Bulls Tight 5 negligible.   So how did Mozart reckon he made a masiivve difference to the bulls fortunes?   One would like to know about that one.    
       

 Mozart
Here are the results of the games played by the Bulls in Super 15 this year:-
Games won    -    7
Lions       -     25- 17Blues       -     28- 22Sharks     -     23 -19 Cheetahs  -     26-21Stormers   -    28-12Brumbies  -     44-23Rebels      -     40-7 
Games Lost    -    8
Sharks     -     31-16Cheetahs  -     15-9Hurricanes  -   25-20Highlander  -   27-20Waratahs   -    19-12Force         -    15-9Lions         -     32-21Stormers    -    16-0
Games Drawn
Chiefs       -     34/34
In checking my list above - I found a mistake in the list I wrote down.  I had two Cheetahs wins - instead of one - and missed out a game lost to the Lions.   Sorry about that - but my calculations were wrong and I admit as such.  
However, I rechecked and the data is as follows.   In the 7 games the Bulls won the points contributed by Potgietr/Pollard accounts for 5 wins - ie the difference between the wniing margin and the points contributed by those two players.
The information on Matfield is as follows:-
Tackles made -  66Tackles missed  -  8
Line ou takes  -   Own throw  -   50                         Opposition   -    9
Matfield started in 9 games so he still verage roiughly the same averages in tackles and line out wins given in my previous calcuations 
The issue is not around the Bullswins or losses - it is about the arguments raised by Mozart that Matfild made a difference to the wwinning of games by the Bulls and thatthe flyhalf change did nothing in that regard.   Mozart is trying to BS us all about it.   How does 2 or 3 extra line out wins and a very average tackle count of average to poor tackles - makes a difference to the team winning or losing.   The lack of grunt of Matfield i notorious and his contribution to the Bulls Tight 5 negligible.   So how did Mozart reckon he made a masiivve difference to the bulls fortunes?   One would like to know about that one.    
       

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own stats. It's nice you admitted your mistake, but one would hope you check next time....before you call me a liar. There's a good chap.  

 Mozart
Just give me one solid reason for the fact that you implied that Matfield is the reson why the Bulls improved in performance in Super 15?   Just one reason why iwould suffice.  

 Balls - it is not being losers on the thread - it is being discussing rugby issues.   You are being asked a rugby-related question and you refuse to answer that - stupid really.