Captain49,914 posts
24 Dec 2014, 17:43
#41
24 Dec 2014, 17:43#41
Chabal you are a loyal fella....misguided but loyal. All the best.
Pat Lambie v England
Started by DezertFox92 REPLIES1,247 VIEWS· 22 Dec 2014, 13:37
Pro3,164 posts
24 Dec 2014, 17:53
#42
24 Dec 2014, 17:53#42
What I like about you Moz...is that you are still a gentleman in disagreement That's a good quality but I hope PL kicks your opinion into touch and have the humility to give credit to him and Saffex, Mike and Rooinek and humble me, when it happens...lots of egg for breakfast , ol'chap
Captain49,914 posts
24 Dec 2014, 19:23
#43
24 Dec 2014, 19:23#43
Believe me Chabal, I have no problem admitting my mistakes. This wont be that kind of occasion I fear.
Captain49,914 posts
24 Dec 2014, 20:31
#44
24 Dec 2014, 20:31#44
"Lambie has missed and gone dead, and that is one hell of a let off for England"....after the yellow. "T hat's a horror of a mistake", the Pom commentator goes on to say.
And that's my Xmas gift to Morne Steyn who has been shockingly treated by SA fans for a similar mistake.
Pro3,164 posts
24 Dec 2014, 20:46
#45
24 Dec 2014, 20:46#45
I think we should be precisely honest...Morne Steyn deserves a star...a great man, player and great contributor to rugby progress but very conservative but that's the way he has grown up ...a very talented and useful no 10 but NO INDIVIDUAL must rule for ever...there comes a time for those with young, challenging blood to slot in.
L:ambie is more than good, he is phenominal.
L:ambie is more than good, he is phenominal.
Captain49,914 posts
24 Dec 2014, 21:35
#46
24 Dec 2014, 21:35#46
Chabal. Five minutes from the end of the Pom test, we are ahead 25 points to 20. Lambie is presented with a goal kick on the Pom 10 metre line. A chance to put us more than 7 points ahead. He confers with Jean and they mutually decide to kick into the corner. Our maul was well defended and after a minute he kicks the drop to take us 8 points ahead. What does that sequence tell us?
Rookie95 posts
25 Dec 2014, 00:51
#47
25 Dec 2014, 00:51#47
@Nosferatu
No you are incorrect. In fact your assessments are entirely subjective for the most part. The descriptive language used and extensive rambling posts continually opposing Pat Lambie whilst at the same time being incapable of presenting a balanced, objective argument is evidence enough. You might fool most, you might find traction with the gullible but you will have a hard time fooling me. You are more transparent than a tightly drawn piece of cling film. Bulls at all costs especially the number 10 jersey. There is something religious about that in Pretoria.
Neither Lambie nor Pollard are world class flyhalves. End of story.
No you are incorrect. In fact your assessments are entirely subjective for the most part. The descriptive language used and extensive rambling posts continually opposing Pat Lambie whilst at the same time being incapable of presenting a balanced, objective argument is evidence enough. You might fool most, you might find traction with the gullible but you will have a hard time fooling me. You are more transparent than a tightly drawn piece of cling film. Bulls at all costs especially the number 10 jersey. There is something religious about that in Pretoria.
Neither Lambie nor Pollard are world class flyhalves. End of story.
Pro2,288 posts
26 Dec 2014, 14:05
#48
26 Dec 2014, 14:05#48
Oval, this was one of those moments where we get to see what you are made of. You bleated hard, you challenged my assertions without ever posting anything to support your wild allegations. You rely on sensationalism to sway people's fickle emotions, but the video stands as irrefutable evidence that I was correct in everything I said. You are blown out of the water. Your credibility is no more. I particularly loved the bit about me manipulating with devious semantics to create an impression. Yet the video bares it all out; Lambie was indeed "smashed" unless your criteria is so strict that he must literally be under an anvil!
Now Pollard isn't World Class? Hang your head in shame.
Now Pollard isn't World Class? Hang your head in shame.
Captain49,914 posts
26 Dec 2014, 16:07
#49
26 Dec 2014, 16:07#49
And if you watch Pollard's maligned performance against Ireland again, you will see there were very few, if any, actual errors. Perhaps he could have kicked a little more from neutral platforms....but after beating NZ with the running game the tactics were to run the ball.
You see none of the high passes, low passes, hospital passes or runs smashed backwards like Lambie at minute 59.10 of the Pom game.
We finally have a flyhalf with a winner's mentality. Pollard is a confident player. I hope HM doesn't cast him as Barrett behind our own "lesser Cruden". He has a far more rounded game than the talented Barrett.
Captain30,741 posts
26 Dec 2014, 16:12
#50
26 Dec 2014, 16:12#50
Then one has to ask why our pathetic coach dropped Pollard after that Irish test when the lad had done very little wrong.....this on the back of an outstanding performance against NZ........Meyer's player management is piss piss poor.
Captain26,388 posts
26 Dec 2014, 16:13
#51
26 Dec 2014, 16:13#51
Moz, he should have mixed things up a bit more. Grubber here, chip kick there. It was obviously the game plan to run everything...instructions from coach and captain. It did not help our cause that we got owned at the breakdown either. We dearly missed Flo.
Captain49,914 posts
26 Dec 2014, 18:17
#52
26 Dec 2014, 18:17#52
I agree Draad, you could accuse him of being a little predictable in that game. But the real issue was inside him, where Hougaard fumbled away try scoring opportunities.
Right now it's the unit of Lambie and Reinach vs the unit of Hougaard and Pollard. The issue there is Hougaard is so inconsistent. He was decentish in the last two RC matches, but horrible throughout the YE tour. His reflexes seem to be gone some days. Almost like a punch drunk boxer. Pollard is at a disadvantage because of that.
We need to settle on Pollard and find a scrummie that provides a swift, accurate pass without the stepping Reinach needs.
Rookie95 posts
26 Dec 2014, 21:56
#53
26 Dec 2014, 21:56#53
@Vampirefantasy
I am not sure you get my point. I actually think my opinion is devoid of emotive inference whereas yours clearly is not. Based on that, I find it amusing that you should accuse me of subjective propaganda.
I say again, if judgement should be based of their last game on the end of year tour, neither Lambie nor Pollard are international quality flyhalves. Based on that I am not sure why you keep directing me back to the video. I am not protesting on behalf of Patrick Lambie's Springbok ambitions. I hope that is clear. If not, let me know I will try explain it again.
That said however, whether your assertions are correct or not, your agenda is hopelessly transparent. Again, I reiterate that I am no Lambie fan however it is abundantly clear that your well worded essays are intended to discredit Lambie in the hope that it will strengthen Pollard's position. Are you in marketing, PR or politics? Your assessment is nullified through your severely transparent bias. As I say, some will buy it. I don't.
That's all I am saying.
I am not sure you get my point. I actually think my opinion is devoid of emotive inference whereas yours clearly is not. Based on that, I find it amusing that you should accuse me of subjective propaganda.
I say again, if judgement should be based of their last game on the end of year tour, neither Lambie nor Pollard are international quality flyhalves. Based on that I am not sure why you keep directing me back to the video. I am not protesting on behalf of Patrick Lambie's Springbok ambitions. I hope that is clear. If not, let me know I will try explain it again.
That said however, whether your assertions are correct or not, your agenda is hopelessly transparent. Again, I reiterate that I am no Lambie fan however it is abundantly clear that your well worded essays are intended to discredit Lambie in the hope that it will strengthen Pollard's position. Are you in marketing, PR or politics? Your assessment is nullified through your severely transparent bias. As I say, some will buy it. I don't.
That's all I am saying.
Pro2,288 posts
27 Dec 2014, 12:48
#54
27 Dec 2014, 12:48#54
You are incorrect Oval. My agenda is to weed out the weak links. I already voiced my view that Pollard should not be our starter this year, I said I wouldn't argue against him starting were Morné on the bench as a safety net though. So I was the first to warn you all that dropping Morné would be a gamble, that if Meyer were to do so, Pollard must start every test and get as much game time and experience as possible in an environment he would be expected to lead the team in - in next years World Cup. I warned that Lambie would not be good enough to save Pollard's skin, and low and behold Pollard outshines Lambie; yet Lambie comes away with endless praise! Those are the issues and you have corralled yourself into a corner by continually arguing every point I make.
Captain26,388 posts
27 Dec 2014, 13:15
#55
27 Dec 2014, 13:15#55
Lambie is a confidence player that tends to fold under pressure sometimes. He would flourish within a well oiled team like NZ, but unfortunately the boks are too unsettled ATM, and the odd hick up is bound to happen with him at 10. IMO, Pollard is a bit more steady under huge pressure. Morne had ice in his veins till a few years back, but something has changed. He was never the flashy player, but dependable to a tee, not anymore. That missed touch against would never have happened 3 years ago.
Pro2,288 posts
27 Dec 2014, 13:39
#56
27 Dec 2014, 13:39#56
Lambie is a passive, average player. I do agree that he is a confidence player, but their is no upturn in performance when everything goes his way. Pienaar was the perfect example of a talented confidence player at 10; he won 3 MOM awards in that position, one steering the Boks magnificently in the first Lions test, that as well as his brilliant showings on the 2008 EOYT and the first All Black test of 2009. However, he wilted in the second test after one failed kick at goal, just as he wilted in the second Lions test after a poor kick. That's a confidence player. Lambie keeps on delivering the same substandard garbbled mess in every test regardless. He is the least damaging at 15 where he doesn't have to make too many decisions and can sit most of the game doing basic things. At least there our opponents won't kick very much, as he will always retrieve kicks on a level you only usually see from Dagg. The rest just isn't very good. He was an average player that was over-hyped well ahead of time. He wasn't even anything special at youth level. If he were some wild prodigy I could understand the hype.
Coach57,555 posts
29 Dec 2014, 19:49
#57
29 Dec 2014, 19:49#57
Mozart
Let me quote your statement:-
"Well there we have it. Totally accurate reporting by Lestat.....and every incident is noted. So will the liar Mike kindly point out to us where Lestat was wrong.....or will he slime away to dive into a pile oh his own malodorous waste?"
You are a bloody idiot. The clip that Lestallbemorons showed referred to 35 cases where Lambie was involved - while his story at th start referred to 50 involvements. Can at your age you cannot count?
Secondly - stupid - the descriptions Letsallemorons gave is typical of a totally biased idiot. In that you two share one thing - idiotic bias against some players an d adoration of poor performers.
Let me quote your statement:-
"Well there we have it. Totally accurate reporting by Lestat.....and every incident is noted. So will the liar Mike kindly point out to us where Lestat was wrong.....or will he slime away to dive into a pile oh his own malodorous waste?"
You are a bloody idiot. The clip that Lestallbemorons showed referred to 35 cases where Lambie was involved - while his story at th start referred to 50 involvements. Can at your age you cannot count?
Secondly - stupid - the descriptions Letsallemorons gave is typical of a totally biased idiot. In that you two share one thing - idiotic bias against some players an d adoration of poor performers.
Coach57,555 posts
29 Dec 2014, 19:59
#58
29 Dec 2014, 19:59#58
Letallbemorons
"Your assessment of Morné is incorrect. He is still our best 10 and has no problems making decisions. "
I love your quote - it shows utter ignorance of rugby.
If Morne Steyn was any good - would his club constantly play him from the bench and keep him away from the starting line-up all the time? They regard him as unreliable and a poor decision-maker - hence his inability to make the club starting line-up. If his club regard him as second best to a 22 year-old youngster - why is he the best flyhalf in SA?
Morne's main problem is he is clueless about decision-making since he has absolutely zero ball sense. He must be instructed in advance by the coach what to do - and he cannot decide himself what may be better options.
It is extremely stupid to refer to Morne as the best flyhalf in SA - he is not in the top 10 list of flyhalfs in SA.
"Your assessment of Morné is incorrect. He is still our best 10 and has no problems making decisions. "
I love your quote - it shows utter ignorance of rugby.
If Morne Steyn was any good - would his club constantly play him from the bench and keep him away from the starting line-up all the time? They regard him as unreliable and a poor decision-maker - hence his inability to make the club starting line-up. If his club regard him as second best to a 22 year-old youngster - why is he the best flyhalf in SA?
Morne's main problem is he is clueless about decision-making since he has absolutely zero ball sense. He must be instructed in advance by the coach what to do - and he cannot decide himself what may be better options.
It is extremely stupid to refer to Morne as the best flyhalf in SA - he is not in the top 10 list of flyhalfs in SA.
Captain26,388 posts
29 Dec 2014, 21:47
#59
29 Dec 2014, 21:47#59
Lestat, I am a Morne fan, but something went wrong. He brought less to the table than most 10's, but for his consistency. Deadly kicks, cool under pressure and a dead acurate pass. Somehow he lost some of that, not much, but enough to notice. Still an option at 10 for the Boks? You bet, but not nearly the automatic choice any more. I still like him, but he shall have to bring more to the game than before. Like in 2011, he should have done a Jannie de Beer against Ozz....lots of chances. Bring his strengths to the table. No use in him trying to be a Carter, Wilkinson or whatever. Be the best Mornè he can be. Sadly we won't see it.
Coach57,555 posts
30 Dec 2014, 05:14
#60
30 Dec 2014, 05:14#60
DbDraad
Morne always was a one-dimensional player - he was good at kicking at goal and that was the one dimension - the rest always was questionable. He was dropped from the team basically for fouling up the Perth test against Australia - deservedly so. He missed to find touch when taking a penalty in his own 22 - and people said it was inexplicable. But it was not at all inexplicable - he did it 7 times in the previous 9 tests, so it was bound to happen at critical times in tests.
The other issue is his defense. It deteriorated to the elvel where it was a joke in bad taste. In the Perth test he missed 7 out of 15 tackle attempts. Also nothing new - his missed tackle ratio was in recent tests he played in on average above 25%.
Always a rather dubious flyhalf - he
* is over the age of 30 - when performances of players deteriorates badly; and
* entered took a contract with Stade Francais and the Club soon found him deficient in performances and in virtually all recent games put him on the bench and allowed him onto the field of play when the outcome of games were secure.
Since he under-performs for his club they would not play him in critical games - so there is no chance that we will ever see him at his nominal best at all - unless Meyer is stupid enough to bring him into the Springbok team again - a situation whee he is bound to faiil.
Morne always was a one-dimensional player - he was good at kicking at goal and that was the one dimension - the rest always was questionable. He was dropped from the team basically for fouling up the Perth test against Australia - deservedly so. He missed to find touch when taking a penalty in his own 22 - and people said it was inexplicable. But it was not at all inexplicable - he did it 7 times in the previous 9 tests, so it was bound to happen at critical times in tests.
The other issue is his defense. It deteriorated to the elvel where it was a joke in bad taste. In the Perth test he missed 7 out of 15 tackle attempts. Also nothing new - his missed tackle ratio was in recent tests he played in on average above 25%.
Always a rather dubious flyhalf - he
* is over the age of 30 - when performances of players deteriorates badly; and
* entered took a contract with Stade Francais and the Club soon found him deficient in performances and in virtually all recent games put him on the bench and allowed him onto the field of play when the outcome of games were secure.
Since he under-performs for his club they would not play him in critical games - so there is no chance that we will ever see him at his nominal best at all - unless Meyer is stupid enough to bring him into the Springbok team again - a situation whee he is bound to faiil.
Captain49,914 posts
30 Dec 2014, 07:08
#61
30 Dec 2014, 07:08#61
Lambie is not the answer, that much is crystal clear.
Coach57,555 posts
30 Dec 2014, 07:12
#62
30 Dec 2014, 07:12#62
Morne is not the answer - that much is crystal clear.
Pro2,288 posts
30 Dec 2014, 13:23
#63
30 Dec 2014, 13:23#63
Michael, we all know you don't actually watch these games (not that you understand the game even you did!). You started this rubbish with Frans in France then I posted videos of those games too. Everything you say is a lie. I consider myself most fortunate not to know you in person.
Coach57,555 posts
30 Dec 2014, 13:58
#64
30 Dec 2014, 13:58#64
LetsalEverything you write is biased BS. If you reaqlly believe the tripe you wrtiee - you are to be pitied.
What games don't i watch? When did you post videos of the games in France - Liar?. What is clear as daylight is that Stade Francais does not play Morne in their starting line-up in competitive games.- since he lets them down all the time. They have started him in two games since the November tests - both on lower level in competitions. That should tell you straight out - the man is not a flyhalf's backside.
Your dirivel about Lambie is a joke. Why don\'t you write the truth at times? take the following:-
"61:58 - Lambie with an attempted tackle assist, no impact."
The real situation is that Matfield missed his tackle andth ball-crrier was broiught down by Lambie and Coetzee. It is not as if the attempt had no impact - the man was brought down. Who was primnarily responsible? Lambie was up front insofar as the ball carrier was connerned - Coetzee slightly to the side. In essence that means that the more important tackler in this case was Lambie.
"59:10 - Lambie gets smashed in possession on England's 22m linE"
Did Lambie lose the ball in the tackle - did the Springboks lose possession? The plain fact is that it was an ordinary tackle - nobody got smashed.
The above are just two BS descriptions given out by you as facts.
You can analyse most of the above string of involvements and come up with facts that counter completely the biased drivel you wrote.
Let me put it clearly - I am not entirely impressed by Lambie - he is not the perfect flyhalf. I do criticize players - but only objectively and where they deserve criticism - I do not write drivel and biased tripe to try and discredit them.
However, compared to players like Morne Steyn and Francois Steyn - Lambie is 10 times the flyhalf they ever were and ever will be. I like thinking players that can vary play and make proper decisions - something those two robots are incapable of doing.
What games don't i watch? When did you post videos of the games in France - Liar?. What is clear as daylight is that Stade Francais does not play Morne in their starting line-up in competitive games.- since he lets them down all the time. They have started him in two games since the November tests - both on lower level in competitions. That should tell you straight out - the man is not a flyhalf's backside.
Your dirivel about Lambie is a joke. Why don\'t you write the truth at times? take the following:-
"61:58 - Lambie with an attempted tackle assist, no impact."
The real situation is that Matfield missed his tackle andth ball-crrier was broiught down by Lambie and Coetzee. It is not as if the attempt had no impact - the man was brought down. Who was primnarily responsible? Lambie was up front insofar as the ball carrier was connerned - Coetzee slightly to the side. In essence that means that the more important tackler in this case was Lambie.
"59:10 - Lambie gets smashed in possession on England's 22m linE"
Did Lambie lose the ball in the tackle - did the Springboks lose possession? The plain fact is that it was an ordinary tackle - nobody got smashed.
The above are just two BS descriptions given out by you as facts.
You can analyse most of the above string of involvements and come up with facts that counter completely the biased drivel you wrote.
Let me put it clearly - I am not entirely impressed by Lambie - he is not the perfect flyhalf. I do criticize players - but only objectively and where they deserve criticism - I do not write drivel and biased tripe to try and discredit them.
However, compared to players like Morne Steyn and Francois Steyn - Lambie is 10 times the flyhalf they ever were and ever will be. I like thinking players that can vary play and make proper decisions - something those two robots are incapable of doing.
Pro9,905 posts
30 Dec 2014, 14:37
#65
30 Dec 2014, 14:37#65
It's nothing new. LeTwat has been anti Lambie since the beginning.
He would much prefer the entire Bulls team wearing green and gold.
Pro2,288 posts
30 Dec 2014, 14:41
#66
30 Dec 2014, 14:41#66
Really? From the beginning I kept very quite until I saw enough from him. That would be until the middle-end of the 2011 Super rugby season. I keep debunking the fanboys but still they are too incapable to respond with anything other than little tantrums.
Michael, your assessments on Lambie are a disgrace. His tackle assist was exactly as described. As for the smash, he was belted backwards. If you can't admit that he was comorehensively dominated in his run attempt then there is something disturbingly wrong with you Michael.
But as is always the case, as it has been from the very beginning, the Lambie fanboy's only defence has ever been lies and bullying to thwart any attempt at honesty or individual thought; a cut against the grain from the singularity that is the Lambie hive mind. This thread has blown all the fans out of the water. There is no debate, it's case closed. Lambie failed exactly as described. But I might have yet another ace up my sleeve to heap even more egg out.
Michael, your assessments on Lambie are a disgrace. His tackle assist was exactly as described. As for the smash, he was belted backwards. If you can't admit that he was comorehensively dominated in his run attempt then there is something disturbingly wrong with you Michael.
But as is always the case, as it has been from the very beginning, the Lambie fanboy's only defence has ever been lies and bullying to thwart any attempt at honesty or individual thought; a cut against the grain from the singularity that is the Lambie hive mind. This thread has blown all the fans out of the water. There is no debate, it's case closed. Lambie failed exactly as described. But I might have yet another ace up my sleeve to heap even more egg out.
Coach57,555 posts
30 Dec 2014, 15:07
#67
30 Dec 2014, 15:07#67
If anybody wants an absolutely inaccurate and biased write up of what happened on a rugby field - then he just have to readyour write-ups and those of Mozart.
Just as an aside - how do a player tackle a ball carrier backwards when he goes low? It is acceptable that a low tackle will always result in the ball carrier fallinf forwards - not backwards. A backwards falling tackle will always be chest high or between the chest and hips. A backline player can only go low against a much heavier forward to even make a tackle if he wants to be successful - otherwise he ends up with a missed tackle ratio of 46% - like was th case with Morne in the Perth test and with Fransie throughout Super 15.
A tackle is effective or not effective - in other words a missed tackle - comprehende? If you want to complain about tackles where the ball carrier falls forward in the tackle - then why are you silent about Matfield? He can go chest high or any height and the players will fall forward win tackles - that is if he does not miss tackles completely.
Just as an aside - how do a player tackle a ball carrier backwards when he goes low? It is acceptable that a low tackle will always result in the ball carrier fallinf forwards - not backwards. A backwards falling tackle will always be chest high or between the chest and hips. A backline player can only go low against a much heavier forward to even make a tackle if he wants to be successful - otherwise he ends up with a missed tackle ratio of 46% - like was th case with Morne in the Perth test and with Fransie throughout Super 15.
A tackle is effective or not effective - in other words a missed tackle - comprehende? If you want to complain about tackles where the ball carrier falls forward in the tackle - then why are you silent about Matfield? He can go chest high or any height and the players will fall forward win tackles - that is if he does not miss tackles completely.
Captain49,914 posts
30 Dec 2014, 17:01
#68
30 Dec 2014, 17:01#68
No let's look at that incident at 59.10. He gets the ball with enough time to make the pass, but dithers. He tries to step two forwards, gets picked up and smashed backwards for two metres. Lestat was totally right.
At 61.58 Matfield is nowhere near the tackle as the OOM reports. It's Coetzee who goes low and Lambie who makes a sad attempt at holding up the player and hunting for the ball. In the next move he and Steppie crowd the outside backs towards touch.
We can debate about words...I think lestat's words are fine, disagree if you want. But saying Matfield misses the tackle at 61.58 is a typical stinking OOM lie. Disgusting dishonesty.....look for yourself.
This is the only Board I have been on where such outrageous dishonesty has not been called by posters. This man lowers the standard of debate with his deliberate lying.
Pro2,288 posts
30 Dec 2014, 17:33
#69
30 Dec 2014, 17:33#69
Michael is trying to kill two birds with one stone. As always lying, quite brazen given the video is right there, but a compulsive liar lies so much that they lose sense of what is believable and what isn't.
Pro2,288 posts
30 Dec 2014, 17:46
#70
30 Dec 2014, 17:46#70
"A backwards falling tackle will always be chest high or between the
chest and hips. A backline player can only go low against a much
heavier forward to even make a tackle if he wants to be successful"
Morné can tackle much heavier players head on, heck he even ran over Retallick. Against France is knocked Mermoz cleanly back from a standing position by a couple of meters.
You stated that Lambie is 10 times the player Morné is, well, I trust you had a carefully reasoned method in arriving to such a definite conclusion. Would you care to share that with is? Or was it yet another over-emotional aberration?
Morné can tackle much heavier players head on, heck he even ran over Retallick. Against France is knocked Mermoz cleanly back from a standing position by a couple of meters.
You stated that Lambie is 10 times the player Morné is, well, I trust you had a carefully reasoned method in arriving to such a definite conclusion. Would you care to share that with is? Or was it yet another over-emotional aberration?
Captain49,914 posts
30 Dec 2014, 18:55
#71
30 Dec 2014, 18:55#71
I want contrary opinions, it makes for debate. But we can't have debate if we have to correct factual dishonesty first. Stop lying Mike. Stop making wild assertions without verifying if they are true. And stop targeting particular players for lies, as you did with Matfield above. It's tedious.
Coach57,555 posts
30 Dec 2014, 21:25
#72
30 Dec 2014, 21:25#72
Mozart
Letsal complained about La,bie going low and nott akling ball carriers backwards. I was justpointing out that a player who never tackles playrs backwards - and for a Tight 5 playeer a bad exampole - one has merelyto look at Matfield's tackling abilities.
The information on Matfield is factual - he i a tackler with very little strength who never tackles players baclkwards - I was merely stating a factual situation. Whenever people make factual statements about your fvourite players - they suddenly lie. Not so in the case of Matfield - the man is physically one of the weakest Tight 5 players in S A Rugby.
Letsal complained about La,bie going low and nott akling ball carriers backwards. I was justpointing out that a player who never tackles playrs backwards - and for a Tight 5 playeer a bad exampole - one has merelyto look at Matfield's tackling abilities.
The information on Matfield is factual - he i a tackler with very little strength who never tackles players baclkwards - I was merely stating a factual situation. Whenever people make factual statements about your fvourite players - they suddenly lie. Not so in the case of Matfield - the man is physically one of the weakest Tight 5 players in S A Rugby.
Captain40,032 posts
30 Dec 2014, 22:20
#73
30 Dec 2014, 22:20#73
Mike make that possibly the weakest test tight five player ever in the history of the game.If you disagree name me a test tight five player who was more pap.
Captain49,914 posts
31 Dec 2014, 00:25
#74
31 Dec 2014, 00:25#74
Slime Ball Maaaaik. You said:
" The real situation is that Matfield missed his tackle andth ball-crrier was broiught down by Lambie and Coetzee. It is not as if the attempt had no impact - the man was brought down"
Now Maaaik ....the problem with that statement is Matfield had nothing to do with that movement....nada. Lie number one.
Secondly Lambie had nothing to do with bringing down the player, Coetzee brought him down. Lambie seemed to be trying to hold up the opponent or strip the ball...both totally unsuccessfully. Lie number two.
Stop lying rubbish.
" The real situation is that Matfield missed his tackle andth ball-crrier was broiught down by Lambie and Coetzee. It is not as if the attempt had no impact - the man was brought down"
Now Maaaik ....the problem with that statement is Matfield had nothing to do with that movement....nada. Lie number one.
Secondly Lambie had nothing to do with bringing down the player, Coetzee brought him down. Lambie seemed to be trying to hold up the opponent or strip the ball...both totally unsuccessfully. Lie number two.
Stop lying rubbish.
Coach57,555 posts
31 Dec 2014, 06:00
#75
31 Dec 2014, 06:00#75
Mozart
Surely you must be blind not to see where Matfield ended up on the grass behind the ball carrier after a failed tackle attempt and that both Lambie and Coetzee had to cover for the missed tackle.
Look - I am not saying that Lambie is the be all and end all of flyhalf rugby in SA - he has some limitations - but at least he is a thinking flyhalf - not robotic like the Steyns. Anybody regarding the two as an option needs to urgency consult a shrink - or start reading up what the game of rugby is about.
Surely you must be blind not to see where Matfield ended up on the grass behind the ball carrier after a failed tackle attempt and that both Lambie and Coetzee had to cover for the missed tackle.
Look - I am not saying that Lambie is the be all and end all of flyhalf rugby in SA - he has some limitations - but at least he is a thinking flyhalf - not robotic like the Steyns. Anybody regarding the two as an option needs to urgency consult a shrink - or start reading up what the game of rugby is about.
Captain49,914 posts
31 Dec 2014, 06:26
#76
31 Dec 2014, 06:26#76
Matfield is lined up with Coetzee and Lambie on their inside....the ball is passed beyond Matfield and the receiver runs at the gap between Coetzee and Lambie. Matfield is never off his feet. Get your facts straight.
Coach57,555 posts
31 Dec 2014, 07:25
#77
31 Dec 2014, 07:25#77
Slapgat's stats on the game:-
Matfield0/000/4/13000112/24/011/0
That was one of Slapgat's missed tackles in the game.
Anyway nice record of the latter:-
* 1 insignificant ball carry* 1 possession loss* Only 4 line out takes - none on opposition throw-in* 1 penalty given away* Yellow card
Useless in the game -useless in most other games. He does not take line-outs like he used to - so this line out specialist is playing purely on reputation.
And the morons have the audacity to criticize Lambie and other players and kee quiet about Slapgat.
Matfield0/000/4/13000112/24/011/0
That was one of Slapgat's missed tackles in the game.
Anyway nice record of the latter:-
* 1 insignificant ball carry* 1 possession loss* Only 4 line out takes - none on opposition throw-in* 1 penalty given away* Yellow card
Useless in the game -useless in most other games. He does not take line-outs like he used to - so this line out specialist is playing purely on reputation.
And the morons have the audacity to criticize Lambie and other players and kee quiet about Slapgat.
Pro2,288 posts
31 Dec 2014, 13:07
#78
31 Dec 2014, 13:07#78
This is classic Michael; get beaten on one issue, so change the emphasis. Michael, I have watched so much of these tests so carefully and I can say Matfield never seems to turn up in a bad way. The worst he had was Foley ducking his tackle against Australia with Australia driving repeatedly in to our line. He might not always catch lineouts, but he runs the entire system. He decides exactly where to go with the ball, which was very often Juan for many years. This year he considerably bolstered our restarts and lineouts, something which was costing us dearly the prior two years! If you can prove anything contrary to what I have said, give me the time stamps and I will go fetch the footage. Until then, your bleating carries no weight.
Coach57,555 posts
31 Dec 2014, 13:51
#79
31 Dec 2014, 13:51#79
Lertsal
Not beaten - I pointed outnthe BS written by you and the all-out attack on Lambie - and ask why others with worse performance are not dealt with. This is the normal BS by some really moronic members of this site.
"This year he considerably bolstered our restarts and lineouts, something which was costing us dearly the prior two years!"
The above is the standard kind of rubbish we have too put up with. Matfield took very few kink-in balls this year - so where is this bit of wishful thinking coming from. H9is line-out takes is down to about 4 per game - any lock at 5 would take more than that - so how did he sstrengthen out line outs?
So what else is new - the Blue Bulls fanatic will always find excuses for Bulls players and damn anyone else.
Not beaten - I pointed outnthe BS written by you and the all-out attack on Lambie - and ask why others with worse performance are not dealt with. This is the normal BS by some really moronic members of this site.
"This year he considerably bolstered our restarts and lineouts, something which was costing us dearly the prior two years!"
The above is the standard kind of rubbish we have too put up with. Matfield took very few kink-in balls this year - so where is this bit of wishful thinking coming from. H9is line-out takes is down to about 4 per game - any lock at 5 would take more than that - so how did he sstrengthen out line outs?
So what else is new - the Blue Bulls fanatic will always find excuses for Bulls players and damn anyone else.
Pro2,288 posts
31 Dec 2014, 14:31
#80
31 Dec 2014, 14:31#80
You pointed out nothing Michael. You only succeeded in making a fool of yourself, and that you are a compulsive liar.
"The above is the standard kind of rubbish we have too put up with. Matfield took very few kink-in balls this year - so where is this bit of wishful thinking coming from."
And the presence of Matfield didn't change the way teams attacked us at restarts? I think you will find they did. Australia doing so much as to kick away from either side of the field, a short one to the middle to avoid our lifters, mainly Matfield. Only one example, but the stats bare it out, 2014 was the first year under Meyer that our restarts were solid. That's no coincidence!
"So what else is new - the Blue Bulls fanatic will always find excuses for Bulls players and damn anyone else"
I love this bit. I'm always the Bulle fanatic evev though I have panned Juandre, Serfontein, Olivier, JJ, Greyling, Werner Kruger, Basson, Van Den Heever, Stegmann (post 2011), Spies for many years too, Cronjé, Danie Coetzee, Ralepelle (2004-2010). Those are just the players that have represented South Africa! Michael, is there anything you can say that has any basis of truth? You call me a fanboy purely because I don't rate Lambie or Goosen. One might call you anti-Bulle given the extent of your lies about virtually every player to ever don the blue jersey. That's just about the only thing you have ever been able to prove.
Oh, and your stat on #5 locks. Please provide me with the actual average for a number 5 lock, and with the data you have collected. You'll need to explain what kind of ball was used from the alternatives and what the gameplan was, as well as field position. I trust you will have no trouble seeing as how I am stupid and you are so very Clevar.
"The above is the standard kind of rubbish we have too put up with. Matfield took very few kink-in balls this year - so where is this bit of wishful thinking coming from."
And the presence of Matfield didn't change the way teams attacked us at restarts? I think you will find they did. Australia doing so much as to kick away from either side of the field, a short one to the middle to avoid our lifters, mainly Matfield. Only one example, but the stats bare it out, 2014 was the first year under Meyer that our restarts were solid. That's no coincidence!
"So what else is new - the Blue Bulls fanatic will always find excuses for Bulls players and damn anyone else"
I love this bit. I'm always the Bulle fanatic evev though I have panned Juandre, Serfontein, Olivier, JJ, Greyling, Werner Kruger, Basson, Van Den Heever, Stegmann (post 2011), Spies for many years too, Cronjé, Danie Coetzee, Ralepelle (2004-2010). Those are just the players that have represented South Africa! Michael, is there anything you can say that has any basis of truth? You call me a fanboy purely because I don't rate Lambie or Goosen. One might call you anti-Bulle given the extent of your lies about virtually every player to ever don the blue jersey. That's just about the only thing you have ever been able to prove.
Oh, and your stat on #5 locks. Please provide me with the actual average for a number 5 lock, and with the data you have collected. You'll need to explain what kind of ball was used from the alternatives and what the gameplan was, as well as field position. I trust you will have no trouble seeing as how I am stupid and you are so very Clevar.
↓ LOAD MORE (page 3 of 3)
