My side to face the Pumas

What a total load of BS?   Matfield in the WC 2015 was a total disaster.   Partly to blame  for the Japan disaster- was useless against Samoa until he walked off the field claiming an injury (for which he was not treated on the field) - a disaster in the semi-final and that summed it up.  Play on the bronze play off against the Argentina "B" team and was no the best forward at all - Malherbe made more tackles than him and his carries was better.   So donate him the MOM for the game as a consolation prize.  

That is Mozart grabbing at straws - typical him who claims that duds are better players than real performers and give a player a 7 rating for doing as near to zero as possible,  

LMAO .             .  

Duplication  

No Matfield in the semi should  have had a 3 - he was totally useless when he came on - utjumped totally in the first line-out and the penalty turnaround, as well as near to zero for ball carries and defense.

In the bronze play-offs that got you all agog about a ailure in the series as a whole the stats were as follows:-

Matfield made LESS tackles than Malherbe did - average 4,6 meters per carry and beat no defenders.  Malherbe  averaged 7 meters per carry and made a clean break as well as beating a defender.  Matfield also gave away 1 penalty.  Etzebeth also had better stats than Matfield,   MOM - nice farewell gift to Matfield - nothing else.  

Matfield's WC 2015  - total failure.  Should not have been in the squad/  His total playing time in the tournament not even half of what was required,   

Not a good way to compare players, players in different positions, with different roles. 

Victor was the success of the 2015 WC. Lood was the failure. 

So idiot speak remains - Matfield played in less than 40% of the game time and was a serious flop in all but the Bronze game against the Argentinian "B" team and was a "success" in the WC.  LMAO  .   

"A serious flop"

When and where, doing what ? 

Critical part of the Japan disaster - where he failed to carry out what Meyer claimed was hos "game plan" - did squat in the time he played in the Saoma tests bnefore alking off claiming an injury.   Then did not play in the Scotland and USA test and buggered up royally in the semi.  Facts and that s ums up Matfield's performance or rather nonperformance.  Would have gotten 1/10 for the semi and 3/10 for all matches he played in until the bronze game.            

Apart from you Moz, who the hell would ever remember who the Man of the match was in a dead rubber third place play-off??

This beggars belief.....

No Mozart

Why not quote the classic Matfield performance in the WC semi.  Fact is that it was widely reported that Matfield by ignoring the  Meyer game plan for the match caused the loss against Japan.   

Selective stats won't help at all,   Moolaa is right anyway an MOM  against the Argentina "B" team is a joke.LMAO   

Here you go big boy, go fish...

The above Japan game was a hell of a poor game by Meyer's rugby geriatrics - end of story, . 

Well, it's all there. Why don't you tell us where these "critical parts of the Japan disaster" are? We can all see for ourselves and it will finally be done and dusted. Couldn't be easier. Even for you. 

No Idiot Speaker

The constnt knock-ons by Burger, the under-utilizing of the forwards, the constant Bismarck penalties and the crazy game plan will not be reflected in a video clip.   Try again.      

The forwards were under-utilized, yet you claim Burger played flyhalf and the Boks played 1980's Bulle ball. 

"the crazy game plan will not be reflected in a video clip"

You've just burried yourself under Mt.Ei 

No Burger knocked on ball after ball passed to him by Pienaar instead of to the flyhalf.  That stupid is not what Meyer wanted - he wanted the Tight 5 to make the Boks overpower the Japanese and they did not, 

In essence through the four years I never saw a game where there in fact was a constructive  game plan.   By 2015 what happened that the ball was in the main  passed back to the forwards and was a constant.   Totally repetitive and predictable, therefore countered with ease by opponents,    

I am always amazed when you write about a game plan - no chance of there being a visible one at all under Meyer. .  .        

Duplication

What you are referring to as ball being passed back to the forwards constantly is the basic shape of the 9 passing to a pod of forwards with a playmaking back in-behind. This is a very, very common shape you'll see under Rassie. Post ELV rugby revolves around screens, as the defence has too much time to see what is in front of it. Not only do they have screens, but they have inter-locking units across the field. There can be a 3 man forward pod with a back in behind, beside or even amongst - the case of a box formation, the pocket runner usually being the bottom corner furthest away from the ruck, which Damian has been used in. Take a snapshot of each phase, highlight the various groupings and make a note of what Rassie has them do. You'll see some recurring plays and personnel groupings. This is where you'll learn how the Boks really play. Not from a stats sheet. 

I said it once, and I'll say it again: You do not understand how the game is played and you do not know how any team has played under any coach. 

The difference is that under Erasmus the forwards linked up with backline players in attacking play - virtually never happened never happened under Meyer.  And Meyer's m,ain roblem is that Steyn was never a flyhalf - rather a kicking dummy - and dismally directed nd aimless kicks being the norm.

It is amazing the difference between what you describe and what the panel of the Breakdown program - all previous top AB players said about how major the change in rugby performance and a constructive game plan of Meyer benefitted the Springbok team - none of the negative BS you spout on site.   Must we believe you and not  real expert players/           

Actually, you are wrong again. Here's a play the Boks ran against Australia in 2015: 

This was in the 39th minute. The Boks recovered a loose ball off a restart through Eben. They were so well organised and drilled that they immediately found their shape to execute this play on the very next phase after that won turnover. 

They line up with two lines of attack comprising S3-S15-S8 in the front line, and S10-S13-S12 in the second line. These two attacking lines sit beneath S4 who is at first receiver as a decoy and screen. S9 passes behind S4 to S15, S15 passes behind S8 to S12. S13 is quickly in support on his inside as a cleaner. S10 positions himself for the next phase on the return to the right. 

There are many examples of this. In the same game, they ran a box formation with 10 and 12 beneath 8 and 1. Damian was the pocket runner. There are countless examples of forwards linking up with the backs in sequenced phases of play. Recall Bismarck's try against Wales in 2013? That after Morné set Habana free outside the edge of the defence, Jean ran in support and Bissie finished the move off. You are either too dishonest or too sloppy to learn from all these hundreds of hours of game footage. 

And who was critical in executing the plan - De Allende and Kriel, without any sign of Morne.  That was before their skills were coached out of them by Meyer.  One incident does not wipe out three seasons of unadulterated BS.      

Damian and Kriel never had any skills. In fact, Damian's best rugby was under Meyer. He improved, tightening up his game during his time with Meyer in 2015. His worst rugby of his senior career was his 2014 and 2015 super rugby campaigns. So, you are wrong again. 

Interesting how you now credit this game planning entirely to Kriel and Damian. The latter being our least intelligent player. You are on the ropes again, how much longer can you hang on? 

It's very unfortunate that the players he attacks most in that WC turn up for all the right reasons with the highest production. The players the plastics backed the most let the side down. Where was Steph, at 7 against Japan? Nowhere. Where was Lood when we really needed him? Likewise Kriel, Damian, Malherbe et al? 

Listen dimness your mind sin totally warped.  De Allende and Malherbe never played in the Japamn disaster test.  Du Toit never for three years played at 7 and as you should nknow by now Meyer regarded the 7 as a Tight 5 replacement for Matfield - who was outside of line-outs hopeless as a Tight 5 player.  

Lood made 14 tackles missing 2 in the semi in 50 minutes - Matfield made 3 tackles in 20 minutes - so where was he?

No dimness -- now you are onto  Mostert.  if there was one problem on Saturday in the AB game it was at line-outs and the  main problem was the physically deficient Mostert.    No - time to start understanding the game and not spout rubbish the way you d at present,

It is always a real pleasure reading the BS Mozart, Pakie and you come up with - if you state something about player performances take the directly  opposite view and you will be arriving at the true situation.         

Kak story again - are you not ashamed of yourself? 

Hey, you leave Mauling Mostert the Great our of this Lügnerin! The Swan Princess tends to take flight when the proverbial hits the fan. 

No - the main Springbok game on Saturday was in the line outs caused in the main that the AB's targeted the physically deficient Mostert and  out him under pressure,  As long as he is around the driving mauls will never work - as was the case in 2018 already,   Nice player - but he is not up to standard in the Tight 5,   Unfortunately when he was tried out at 7 he failed to make the grade.

There has never been a maul problem with Mauling Mostert, it's all in the name Lügnerin. You really must read more carefully. No need to thank me, always willing to lend a helping hand for those in need.