JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
12 Jul 2014, 01:46#2
".... and Victor made tackles, carried into traffic and soared over all others in the lineout. What a great, great player." Dr Moz engaging in a little fishing for his favorite respondents , lol but so far no luck. Keep at it Moz you will get a bite sooner or later, lol
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Jul 2014, 05:22#4
Mozart
F irst question - did you actually watch the game? It is really funny how you express BS opinions withoiut seeing the games and then go on the rampage about certain players. On the other hand the Rebels is the bottom of the log team and even then they did not play their strongest team as well - so a fine team to start making comparisons.
"Victor made tackles, carried into traffic and soared over all others in the lineout. What a great, great player."
Lets evaluate the above statement and see what it is really worth:-
Matfield0/000/2/42000110/18/010/0
"Victor made tackles,
I had look at the tackles - they were all weak and of a poor nature. Matfield tries to grab players in traffic by the shoulders when running towards him and try and force the ball-carriers down that way. In fact that is not even remotely a realistic tackle - it merel;y delays the ball carrier and allows for a real tackle by another player. The end result is that the ball carrier keep on going forward in the tackle and the balls are retained by the opposing side. There was realistically two tackles made by Matfield that did not meet the above description - but in each case the ball carrier went forward in the tackle - so in reality the situation of weak tackles remains a serious problem insofar as Matfield is concerned. Will the Matfield tackle technique work against stronger opposition - not a snowballs hope in hell of a chance.
"carried into traffic:
What a lot of BS. Matfield carried the ball in traffic three times making in fact 2 meters - the other carry was in space where he also made 2 meters. The best potential carry effort was disrupted because Matfekld knocked on the ball and lost acres in space when the Rebels kicked the knocked on ball forward.
In essence all the elements of physically deficient performance I gave over the past week about Matfield was in evidence even more so than in the previous match. Th way Matfield is shoved aside in rolling mauls and the opposing player came through the maul and negate the maul effectiveness was even clearer than last weekend.
open you bloody eyes and stop this idiotic praise singing - it is really sickening to seee the bias you display.
---------------------------
"But the Bools stars were the locks. Willemse is much stronger than slapchips Lood"
I will add about the "slapchips Lood" issue by saying you are the worst and most idiotic assessor of player performances I have ever seen and the most biased one at that. Just as an aside gave top strength performances in tests - Willemse in a game against the weakest Super 15 side.
And this from an idiot that in the same sentence praised Matfield's pathetic ball carries.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Jul 2014, 06:20#5
First answer I did watch the match. How else would I know the Rebels lock ran over Pollard, you dope. Now to your other points.
Firstly, the ball carrier almost always goes forward in the tackle. Why? Because he is trying to advance in contact and the tackler is merely trying to stop the runner. The rest is physics. Matfield made a series of excellent tackles, commented on positively by the booth. So much for that.
Secondly Victor took the ball into heavy traffic four times....and presented it each time with excellence. The one time he knocked the ball, it was an offload straight into his shoulder....Victor has magnificent hands. So much for that.
Thirdly Lood was effective in a dominant Bok pack against Wales in the first test and Scotland? Put him up against Willemse and he'd be in reverse. Willemse is a much more powerful unit. Etzebeth has regularly made Lood his bunny.
Got it?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Jul 2014, 07:02#6
Mozart
May I ask you a serious question? Do you write crap on this site to get a reaction? I cannot believe that you are so rugby-ignorant that you really believe in what you wrote here.
Matfield's excellent tackles was in the main BS of the highest order. You know why players bump him out of the way - it is with that kind of tackles I described above. I have never seen that type of tackle work effectively because virtually no other player uses it and it is really ineffective and will never work against stronger opposition.
Taking the ball in traffic four times making all of 2 meters is nothing to be pride of. It meant that they were weak carries and the fact that the ball was recovered was not due to Matfield's so-called excellent presentation - more due to other players managing recovery of the ball in stagnant play.
This praise singing of Matfield is ridiculous - the man is physically-deficient and if you cannot see that - you must be blind r at least blinded by prejudice.
Now suddenly you dream up something about De Jager been shown up by Etzebeth. You have no proof of that and that kind of thing is brought up every time you dream up a ridiculous lie. Lets face facts in any event. Etzebeth is widely credited as the best lock in the world. Now you claim that he outplayed De Jager - but he never played against Willemse - so what does that proof? Nothing - but an illogical guess.
De jager is not slapchips as you ridiculously calls him. He has ten times more grunt than gruntless Matfield has and he definitely is not physically deficient like Matfield. One cans eee through your carping what you want to present. You fear that De Jager may displace weak Matfield in the Springbok team when Etzebeth comes back - so all types of drivel and trash will be OK on your part.
And the mystically strong tackle attempts by Alberts and Fransie could not stop De Jager from scoring a try. You automatically kept quiet about those two fat buggers and blame Coetzee for the failed attempt to prevent the scoring of a try by De Jager.
What I do credit Willemse with - he is ten times the lock Matfield is at present and a worthy candidate for selection to the Spriungbok squad - bearing in mind that Matfield is nothing of the kind.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
12 Jul 2014, 08:25#7
I don't fear Lood will replace Victor. If HM concludes that's the way to go Victor can retire with a stellar career. But it won't happen. Lood isn't that good. He isn't anywhere near Etzebeth as a 4 lock. Nor as good as Willemse. So that leaves him competing as a number 5 lock with Victor, Lewies and Stephanie. Victor wins that battle with consummate ease until age finally catches up with him.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Jul 2014, 12:27#8
Mozart
Matfield should retire - he is destroying his image by staying on. No grunt- poor ball carries - poor tackling - no participation in tight 5 play. Age has caught up with him - he will disgrace himself and us in the RC
How do you manage to compare players that has not played against each other and then bring in Slap Matfield into the equation. Your fantasies and lies make you irrational. The physical-deficient and gruntless Matfield is not in the league of any of the other locks you mention.
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
12 Jul 2014, 12:38#9
I believe Lood will be the future, I don't rate Etzebeth nearly as highly as his reputation demands. Less scowling and starting fights and more productivity is what I want; Lood is stronger and more productive. And when all is said and done we are stronger without Eben than with him. Victor, Bakkies, Flip and Lood give us all we need and that highlights how overrated Eben really is.
"he is destroying his image by staying on"
Really? And who is it exactly that is seeing the bad in him right now?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Jul 2014, 12:41#10
Sun Tzu
A lot of people see what he produces and is not at all impressed - they realize he is going to let us down. .
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
12 Jul 2014, 12:51#11
I want to see lood and Eben in Tandem. Eben is the strongest and fastest lock in the country. Go ask Meyer.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
12 Jul 2014, 14:49#12
Geez Moz you do speak a load of shit. The Bulls scrum dominated all game you fool.
Kindly point out how the fuck you conclude that Marcel cant scrum given the Bulls dominated the scrums........you like to make these bold statements, now back them up with the evidence.
Name a single scrum in the game where you would conclude that Marcel cant scrum.
As for his carries, he is one of the best in the business, on the charge he takes defenders out as he did last night.......Marcel had a good game
The Bulls centres were good, JJ beat a good few defenders and Jan was good with both ball in hand and in defence. These two are our best S15 centre pair by far.
Hougaard is back to his best, has always been......is good wherever he plays......9 is where we need him and where he wants to play. He needs to start at 9 for the Boks
Willemse was huge, what a talent this kid is.......so much better than the useless old farts. I had Lood ahead of Willemse, that is no longer the case......they are on a par and with Etzebeth and Steph du Toit, we do not need to look any further for our test locks.
I just wonder if Meyer has the brains to cap Willemse before he pisses off the France......my guess is that he is too stupid to make that call
Moz, now do us a favour and provide the evidence where Marcel cant scrum......this should expose you for the shit you speak
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
12 Jul 2014, 14:57#13
Dim Sun, anyone who does not rate Etzebeth exposes just how rugby ignorant they are.......you really do know very little about the game, seriously
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
12 Jul 2014, 15:03#14
On the stats front I think you will find that JJ did beat a defender......I think that stats man must have been sleeping......there was definitely a step to beat a defender......i'll find it........Moz you can do the same when you are searching for the scrum where Marcel failed......your search will take days
Did Matfield play by the way?
JWJust_win
Captain18,570 posts
JWJust_winCaptain18,570 posts
12 Jul 2014, 15:12#15
Poteiger may be recalled for the Boks according to the come ntators in the Tahs vs. reds game.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Jul 2014, 17:13#17
Mozart
Ok - please explain why 7 carries making twelve meters is less effective than your favourite - the one you were racing about how good his ball carries were - making 2 meters from 4 carries.
That really will be fun to see - the explanation is guaranteed to be funny or far-fetched so let it come.
The other issue is - I wrote that Matfield has less grunt than Juandre Kruger - who has enough grunt to scare a butterfly. Why no comment and prov that I am wrong about "die slapgat" .
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
12 Jul 2014, 21:12#19
Ducking and diving like it is unbelievable. A straight question a non-answer. Why are you hammering Ban der Merwe on his carries and Matfield who did no real carries got praised for it? That was what the quiestion was.
I n niot happy with Van der Merwe's scrumming and he is at times ineffective in other formats of play as well. However, that is not the point. If you want to praise or criticise a player make sure you cannot be made to look foolish.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
13 Jul 2014, 02:37#20
No Marcel is the point....look at the string title. You tried to introduce Victor, just as you introduce Alberts and Morne in completely unrelated strings. Boring, pig headed repetition.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
13 Jul 2014, 04:06#21
I am not defending Marcel at all - I am just saying when criticizing players - use reasonable and accountable criticism - don't grasps at straws. Marcel is not a good enough scrummager - sure I agree. But why add indefensible data about his ball carries at all? If you said he lost ball possession on three occassions 3 times - fine, no problem.
Don't try the overkill - that is my advice to you. It is the overkill that cause you to look silly in other cases as well - that is my point here. By prasiing players you like when in fact their performances in aspects of the game you praised is sub-par - and criticizing players you dislike through usage of acceptable performance data - makes you look silly and incoherent.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
14 Jul 2014, 19:50#25
Mozart
According to your initial write-up you thought that Matfield was the MOM - b8t that proved to eb a misconception as always. Now suuddenly it is Willemse - because he is according to you better than DE jager - who was most impreesive in recent matches against stronger opposition than Willemse faced on Saturday.
Willemse is good - miles better than Slapgat Mattfield - who does not have enough grunt to force his way through a paper screen. I agree with Saffex - we have enough lock capacity available to do without the gruntless old farts.
