15 Sept 2015, 15:44#1
Matfield is probably the most controversial player in the Bok squad, and many question why he is there. But it is very simple. We may well need his leadership at this world cup. You see, De Villiers still has question marks over his fitness, and with Duane in the same boat, Schalk not our first choice loosie, and Bizzie seemingly imploding at the Sharks with the added responsibility of the captaincy, we may well have a huge leadership vacuum. That is why he is there. Not because he is better than anyone else, but because we could realistically expect to be without a recognised captain at RWC 2015.
The blame for this should fall squarely on Meyers Shoulders, because he could have blooded new leaders a long time ago, but just didn't! Now we potentially have Homo Naledi's older brother taking the place of better locks, because we simply have no other choice.
15 Sept 2015, 16:37#3
There are a few issues surrounding Matfield.
The first is issue is that there are some who think that there is an issue.
The second issue is that there are some that dearly want there to be an issue. They have probably nightmares trying to dream up issues with Matfield.
The third issue with Matfield is that there is no Matfield issue.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Sept 2015, 16:51#4
Ceradunce
Keep on living in dreamworld because you obviously does not know anything about rugby.
There are not some who think there are a lot of people in the know and who was international locks who think he is not up ti standard as a lock and they give very clear reasons why he is not.
Nobody needs to dream up problems - they are as clear as daylight when it observers watch the games Matfield plays in carefully and clearly see the deficiencies ion the Springbok Tight 5 because of Matfield. There are numerous deficiencies - a long list of those was mentioned on this site - but the denialists deny that there is anything wrong with Matfield because they do not want to see what is actually wrong.
Fact is that Matfield is physically too weak to play on international level as a lock.
15 Sept 2015, 17:10#5
Uhmmm.
"Keep on living in dreamworld because you obviously does not know anything about rugby. "
This from the self righteous plank who always go crying, about personal attacks, like o little girl.
"Fact is that Matfield is physically too weak to play on international level as a lock. "
Looks like you have still not done the fact v opinion exercise. Want me to run it past you again?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Sept 2015, 17:18#6
Balls - your test is meaningless as you do not have an idea about reality if it hits you in the face. If you cannot or do not want to see what is in fact happening on the field of play - you will class everything factual situation as an opinion.
I will give you another fact - Matfield is going to be the main cause of the Springboks early departure from the WC.
15 Sept 2015, 19:00#7
Ooops.... Nostramike............?
It is no t my test. It is a general test for clowns who do not distinguish between fact and opinion.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Sept 2015, 19:25#8
Fine it is not your test - but the outcome should be honest and motivated onhectively. Whenever you do not like motivated statements as being factual - you turn it into "opinion". That makes a farce of the test and what makes if useless on this site.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Sept 2015, 20:40#10
Still useless - since you do not accept evidence and you argue that every thing you do not want to believe is opinions irrespective of all evidence.
15 Sept 2015, 20:58#11
What evidence, p@epol? Your opinion that Matfield weakens the tight 5, among others? And that is based upon what? Another Tokkie opinion? Gaan slaap man. Jy weet f@kol.
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
16 Sept 2015, 00:29#13
Opinion as well Moz. I accept that Mayfield adds value to the team, but IMO you are over inflating that value.
DEDenny
Captain12,893 posts
16 Sept 2015, 01:09#15
Funny. Here we have the selected team with Matfield in it.....it is what it is. Isn't it time to drop the debate and to get behind the team?
Isn't that what it means to be a true Bok supporter? Whether his sele ction is justified or not, in my not so humble opinion I believe the debate has gone cold, it's now time to accept and make the best of what there is.
16 Sept 2015, 01:18#16
We have a few supporters and a number of over-inflated egos around here. It should not be too difficult to distinguish between the supporters and the egos............
DEDenny
Captain12,893 posts
16 Sept 2015, 01:26#17
Ja, I understand....it's kinda like their opinion is Uber alles. Buggered if I know why they withered their talents working a day time job instead of stepping into the breach of being a rugby coach....then bending the ears of everyone who pretends to listen.
Such a waste.....sigh.
Nothing is going to change the fact that Matfield is in the squad. Get over it I say.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 01:35#18
Well said denny....it's the Springbok team at the RWC. Any moment they are going to play "The World in Union"....no pun intended.
DEDenny
Captain12,893 posts
16 Sept 2015, 01:47#19
I'm such a Sook....everytime I hear "The World in Union" it brings a tear to my eye...'95 and all that...if you know what I mean.
Go Da Bokke!!!
BObobbok...
Captain10,129 posts
BObobbok...Captain10,129 posts
16 Sept 2015, 01:49#20
OuMaaik, can we please have at least one positive Bok post from you in the lead up to the RWC . Between you & ouDawie there's almost 33000 doom & gloom posts . C'mon, if only for the country's morale.
DEDenny
Captain12,893 posts
16 Sept 2015, 01:54#21
a dose of anti depressants might help...
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 02:05#22
Every match available on Cable....let the games begin.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 02:09#23
The idiot stakes in full swing with the "competitors" being created by Mozart. The same "competitors" that was not competing in the 2011 RWC and he thinks that they still deserve to be there in 2015. There is no way that they can in fact compete in 2015.
Mozart uses one match in which Matfield played as a norm - forget about the fact that in 13 tests Matfield since June 2014, the Springboks lost in 5 tests - making for a lost tests percentage of 38,5% of the tests he played in - what a huge "competitor" that represents.
Another bit of info for Mozart in his idiotic "competitor" stakes:-
Matfield - 123 tests = Tries scored - 7 = 1 try in every 17,6 matchesDe Jager - 12 tests = Tries scored - 3 = 1 try in every 4 matches
So according to Mozart Matfield is a "competitor" - De Jager is not.
It is blind loyalty that causes that kind of argument as to "competitors" to surface. When anybody is critical of Meyer and his questionable selections based on reputation and not performance - the "loyalty" of the critic is suddenly questioned.
I have never seen such a massive campaign to get the support of the country behind the team. It is normally not necessary to do that to start with - in this case the country is united behind the team, but question the wisdom of sending such a badly chosen squad to represent SA - hence the massive campaign needed.
DEDenny
Captain12,893 posts
16 Sept 2015, 02:19#24
Mikey....you are boring....same old same old .....have a lie down.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 03:26#25
Morne Steyn.....8 tries in 59 tests. A try in every 7.4 tests.
Pat Lambie...2 tries in 44 tests. A try in every 22 tests....schplotttttt.
Hahaha and they all said the Pervert was stupid.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 04:55#26
Thick as a plank - this one. This is a discussion on Matfield - not Lambie. But again the diversion tactics in full display. schlopttttt. And they all know Mozart is rugby-stupid.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 05:04#27
Okay okay, Matfield. Etzebeth 37 tests one try...a try every thirty seven tests. Oops.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
16 Sept 2015, 05:23#28
Or perhaps you were referring to Lomp's 50 per cent win ratio as a Bok and his zero per cent win ratio against Oz and NZ in four starts.
16 Sept 2015, 10:01#29
Nee man Moz. Why keep on shooting when the guy was already down after the first shot?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
16 Sept 2015, 10:12#30
This is utter rubbish - the two idiots believe their own misconceptions and the shooting is by me - and they feel they have won the argument - they are still big time losers since their knowledge of rugby is non-existent. it is amazing to see how they beleive in themselves - seriously funny as well,
16 Sept 2015, 10:45#31
Blah di blah di blah......
16 Sept 2015, 16:24#33
Are you telling me that there are only thirteen other locks that you can think of. You should try a bit harder Bo et.
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
16 Sept 2015, 22:05#34
Really kak stats by Eben, drop him. Surely Bakkies did better?
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
16 Sept 2015, 22:31#35
There is no issue in reality. pap victor flopped as a coach at the bulle and as a captain. He is at 105 kg the papest lock at the tournament by a country mile.His much vaunted lineout skills are a myth. He takes one ball and the commentors start talking about his dominance in the lineout. He is a complete media myth.
Furthermore his backline play, never ever up to scratch in any case, has been deteriorating since 2007.
Trust ou cerudunce windpomp to get it wrong. The consistency of the oak is remarkable!
16 Sept 2015, 22:49#36
@Beeno. You have been hanging onto ou Tokkie's lips for too long.
"There is no issue in reality. pap victor flopped as a coach at the bulle and as a captain. "
Once again..... at the time when Victor was an assistant coach at the Bulls , they won the SA conference and reached the S15 semi-finals.
As a player over the last two years, the Bulls seemed to slip up when he was not playing.
Under his captaincy they won three Super 14 titles.
Under VM's captaincy the Boks won 72.72 % of their tests. Compare that to John Smit's 65.66% and Jean de Villiers' 65.66%.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
17 Sept 2015, 08:14#37
Hell - and the moon is made of green cheese. This is the type of BS argument we hear all the time. The Bulls lost because of Matfield and the BS selections of Ludeke. Have you forgotten that newspaper article that was posted on this site and you could not find about the havoc caused by Matfield involving the younger Bulls players.
Then we have the nearly indecent speed the Bulls released him from his coaching contract.
Once Ludeke was gone and Matfield not available the Bulls started to play top notch rugby - or are you not following the CC at all, They now have a top notch performing captain and a team without the normal Bulls geriatrics.
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Sept 2015, 09:37#38
Ou cerudunce windpomp is hanging on to wee matfiled like a child hangs onto a safety blanket. Hahahhaahhahaha The good Dr Mozzz has for once in this life been badly conned.
matfiled cant captain well because how can the other players respect him. The forwards cant because he plays in the backline and backs cant because he makes a poor back. BNwhahahahahahahahah
17 Sept 2015, 09:46#39
"Have you forgotten that newspaper article that was posted on this site and you could not find about the havoc caused by Matfield involving the younger Bulls players."
After days (weeks perhaps?) of ducking and diving I eventually got hold of the article and I found nothing but your won conclusion of the above. Now do us a favour and you go get the article again and show us the exact paragraph sentence in that article where the "havoc" cause by Matfield is mentioned.
17 Sept 2015, 09:56#40
@Clevermike being new here and reading through all of your hate-filled posts, your nickname seems a bit ironic.
If you have an issue with Matfield, it's a personal issue of yours, and nothing to do with him. We have no better 5 lock, and certainly not one who understands the lineouts at international level as well as he does. His job is not to score tries, so I don't care if he has 0 tries to his name - his work in the lineouts have attributed to a lot more tries than our other locks will ever dream of, not to mention preventing quite a lot as well by stealing lineout ball from the opposition.
