The popular concensus Bok pack

 Yea - but then  Jannie and Beast folded against the Argentinians - Matfield caused them to fold against the other teams as well.  Mozart - one thing is clear - Matfield brings zero to scrumming and zero to tight 5 play.  He is physically not strong enough to do so.  He has thin wrists and thinner shoulders making up his 105 kgs.  is the answer to have a 105 kgs weakling at lock - definitely not.
Where is the other stats you were asked to produce - swindler?     

 ".............Matfield brings zero to scrumming and zero to tight 5 play. "
For the umpteenth time. What proof do you have to substantiate that? I do not really expect an answer on that one because you have always been dodging it.

 Just look carefully how Matfield's back his bent when he enters scrums.  From that their can be no forward thrust and then the useless Ouma Victoria is physically weaker than most flank forwards are nowadays - so what can he bring to scrums?  

Reading this thread, you could be forgiven for thinking Matfield was in fact the "concensus" (sic) selection . . . assuming the dull-witted retard who made up the word "concensus" is basing it on the correctly spelled word . . . or knows what the real word means!
Wehe!

 

• s

clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 16577RE: The popular concensus Bok pack
May 06, 2015, 19:08:35 Just look carefully how Matfield's back his bent when he enters scrums.  From that their can be no forward thrust and then the useless Ouma Victoria is physically weaker than most flank forwards are nowadays - so what can he bring to scrums? 

 You cannot make this sh!t up.

 Not sh!t - facts you dullard.  

 Facts? That is even funnier.

 Their are three nutcases on this site - who thinks that Matfield can make a positive contribution to the Springbok Tight 5 in the upcoming WC.   I hope he is not selected because he will destroy any chance of us ever getting anywhere.
The Mozart dunce complain about Labuschagne being "liggies" - but at 108 kgs he is 3 kgs heavier than the real "liggies"  in their proposed  team - Matfield at 105 kgs.  Labuschagne is a loosie - Matfield is supposed to be a lock.   
To rectify that deficiency - Mozart insist on Alberts at 7.  So the fool wants two sub-par players - on the same basis as he previously agitated for Kruger and Alberts in the 2013 tests.  Kruger and Alberts both flopped in the AB test in Ellis Park and the dunce never learned  that lesson.   A deficient lock and a deficient loosie does not make up two positive players.       
The three dunces even wants this physically-deficient player at 38 years of age as the Springbok captain.  How big can fools be - this suggestion must beat the biggest fools on the planet.          

 Ceradunce
Don't you realize that your way of quoting past comments is disrupting the margins on this site.  If in your stupidity you want to quote thinking members' comments on the site - copy the quote you want to make, highlight it and indicate whose comments you are quoting.  Above all - learn from the quotes and try and get some sense into your demented head.  

Liggies maar vetjies....that guy porked up so much he lost al l his pace. A small man bulking up, much like Look Watson. 

 Mozart
What BS are you spreading?  A guy who used to be 105 kgs and is now 108 kgs did not "pork up" you ignorant fool.   When they - L:ike Alberts - porked up from  108 kgs he used to eb to 120 kgs - that is porked up.
Labuschagne is still doing a top job as a loosie - while Ouma Victoria is too weak to be doing his job as a lock.  

 Snapster you have always had a tendancy to give wee victor more weight than existed in reality. Remember you saying he weighed 115 kg but were eventually forced to concede matfiled knew hsi weight better tthan you! Hahahahahahaha 
Wee victor does not weigh 108 kg. He is at 105 kg and possibly this is inflated as it is an extremely embarassing stat.105 kg makes him a mere 2 kg heavier than Brussouw or a Deon Fourie. He is the same weight as Allende.  BwahahahahhahahaIts all very simple. matfiled is a disaster for the bok tight five. Its a huge handicap palying a tight 4 as any sane person would realise.
Now dont expect the insane groupies who have been completely conned by ou victor to ever get real on this subject. To admit they have been fooled by the papest lock ever to play test rugby, super 15 rugby, currie cup rugby and if he played vodacom - vodocom rugby, would all be far, far to embarassing.His backline play is more of a handicap than of use. However last Saturday he managed to catch the passes sent to him in the backline and also to pass the pass onto the next bulle player. The matfiled groupeis went into orgasms about the "great" man's amazing ability etc. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha 
Meyer lost the plot badly last year but the biggest disaster was the return of wee matfiled. The mind boggles at the stupidity. When will we be rid of this self serving oak. Retire now wee victor for the good of the Boks and the Bulle. 
The pack selected above is one I wouldnt mind Meyer trying in the RC. Lots of youthful energy. Etzebeth and Du Toit could become an all tiem great locking combo.Du Toit being a huge step up from pap victor. victor does have the smarts - the smarts to con his groupies. 
AWAY WITH THE CONMAN !

 clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 16593RE: The popular concensus Bok pack
May 07, 2015, 04:37:25 Ceradunce
Don't you realize that your way of quoting past comments is disrupting the margins on this site.  If in your stupidity you want to quote thinking members' comments on the site - copy the quote you want to make, highlight it and indicate whose comments you are quoting.  Above all - learn from the quotes and try and get some sense into your demented head. 

I have no problem with the margins. I can read every post perfectly well. Maybe you should sort out the problem on your side.

 Not true, Saff. Remember the tweet from Victor himself? Stu sent him a tweet on Twitter, when this exact same argument came up almost four years ago, after you insisted that according to your "observation", he was weighing no less than 118kg. He replied that his weight was 107kg. 

M atfield in his physical prime was playing before the ELVs, unfortunately the way the game has changed since then, forwards had to shed some weight and place far greater emphasis on mobility. You want a fast attacking game, you need the fitter more mobile forwards to play it! Victor is still quite strong in the upper body, I posted his bench stats from 2008 which wasn't far off CJ who was the the strongest in the Bok pack! But as shown on the EOYT, his intelligence combined with his mobility make him utterly irreplaceable at present.

Sure in 2008 - Matfield was 31 years of age - he now is 38.  He never was strong - he always was a stringbean - good in line outs a because of his light weight compared to other locks and more easily lifted by the supporters.
There were no strong ball carries in traffic and Matfield speciality was in moonlighting in the backline - where he more often than not disrupted the flow of play.  He is not of any use anymore -
*  his line-out jumping has decreased to the bare minimum - rarely more than 4 line-out takes per game, at times considerably less;
*  he is pushed out of mauls with the greatest of ease and cannot carry balls in traffic - often enough penalized as a result;
*  since constantly moonlighting behind mauls in a backline situation - he makes weak tackles without much benefit for the team he plays for since the balls are easily recovered and distributed by opponents;
There is no way he makes a positive contribution to forward play - our Tight 5 play has been going downhill ever since he was elected by Meyer in June last year and his future inclusion in the team would be a serious drawback to the team.  
This reference to intelligence is a joke.   It is similar to reputation - intelligence and reputation coupled to inability to perform and produce the goods - is an abomination in rugby terms.   And Matfield's performance deficiency remains a serious joke at present.    If he is in the WC squad there is only one way the team will go and that will be down the tube.      

 

 Mike, Matfield is not as bad as you think, but he is also not as indispensable as some would like to believe. Point is, at some stage he will have to retire or will get injured again and what then? We had enough opportunity to try out youngsters, but we didn't. Don't tell me there's no one. 

 @Draad, of course we will have to finally bid Matfield farewell. There is one thing that the Matfield haters cannot get away from and unsurprisingly they flatly refuse to acknowledge that. Everybody is shedding tears because PSDT should be the prime no 5 lock with Etzebeth the no4 and then players like Loodvoet, Lewies, etc should be the back-up. Add to that the fact that HM's initial idea was that Bekker was going to fill the void left by Matfield.
Now, the one question that is constantly being rubbished by the haters, is this one: "How long or over what period, since HM took over, did he have the services of all of those 'prime locks' available?". There have always been at least one of the buggers who. Right now, with a few months away from the RWC, Etzebeth is far from the best that we have seen from him, mainly because of his lengthy lay-offs. PSDT is on the mend once again. Lewies is has just returned from a lengthy rehab. Loodvoet is still injured. VM had an injury, was operated on and is already back. The only other time that he was not ready and available was last year for the test in Argentina. 
The "bright youngsters" all lack durability, from what I can see.

 Draad we have a tragic situation in SA Rugby and it showed up badly in the 2011 WC and for all years subsequently.   That situation basically entails there is virtually no room for player renewal and replacement.  That is not Meyer's problem only and in a way not confined to SA alone - any country winning a WC always persist with what they regard as their tried and tested players.
However, there is one element tragically present in SA and that is the absence of true evaluation of senior players in teams.  The players virtually themselves decide when it is time to go - irrespective of whether they still perform on a satisfactory basis or not.
That leads to a situation where team renewal is virtually not possible.   It virtually happen by accident - and normally stemmed from injury of players and is intended to be temporary - but then turn into a permanent situation because the new players perform so well that the coach cannot afford to let them go without a major outcry - for instance Etzebeth and Willie le Roux.  
Other players were brought in by Meyer - lasted one or two tests and then dropped like hot potatoes and Meyer ru,shed back to the "golden oldies".  He started off slowly with players like Pienaar and Louw and then rushed along getting in players like Steenkamp, Matfield,  Bakkies Botha, Du Preez, Smith and others in instead of looking at younger alternatives.   This really closed the door on bringing in new players and letting them settle in the team.
The problem is there were no real player evaluation on whether the old returnees are in fact performing well enough to retain their places in the Springbok team.  This was augmented by a lack of performance evaluation in respect of existing players.   Age is catching up with some of those - yet they are being kept on in the team likr the coach's life depend on it.
Lets look at typical examples:-
*   Jannie du Plessis has gone down badly in performances the past two years and the fact that it happened and that his age issue (33 years old) is being ignored and by some of the members he is regarded as irreplaceable - yet his scrumming  is really not as strong as it used to be and he encounters serious problems giving away way too many penalties.  His performance outside scrumming is way below par.
*   Matfild is not really as bad as some makes it out to be - but the fact is he is also not as good and as irreplaceable as others state he is.  Matfield started of well by taking a substantial number of line-outs last  year in June - but by the time the RC came along his number of line - out takes dropped down to circa 4 per match.  He made a comeback in the Ireland test and then dropped back to the circa 4 average again.   In reality he only calls a comparatively few line-out balls to come to him.  Insofar as Tight 5 play is concerned - he never was a player who starred in Tight forward play and for instance ball carries in traffic ews basically not part of his game and he was more often amongst the backline players than amongst the forwards.   This is still the case, but compared to 7-8 years ago he obviously is not as good as he used to be.  If a comparative evaluation is done between what Matfield achieves and what is achieved by other more active and stronger players - Matfield will most likely not be regarded as the better lock.
*   Botha, Steenkamp and Jacque Fourie all announced their retirement from international rugby - if they did not they would still have been in the team. Botha made it very clear - he thought he could not compete with the younger players anymore and for that decision he deserve major credit.
*   Other players in the over 30 age group includes players like Morne Steyn and Willem Alberts.   Morne was dropped in 2012 because of seriously deficient performances - but came back onto the scene in 2013 and 2014.  He was nothing special and in some tests - like the Perth one in 2014 - a major disaster.  In the meantime  he went to Stade Francais Club - where he basically became a bench player for the club - despite all protestations to the contrary by by some members on this site - who  refuse to recognize that he is not Springbok material.   Alberts had very little rugby since June last year - but despite protestations to the contrary - he was a very limited player in what he can do and not do.   He still makes a limited number of strong ball carries - even though those are not as frequent as it used to be - and he still make a occasional strong tackle, but these are becoming rarities.  His deficiency is a serious lack of pace resulting in far too many missed tackles through non-attempts to tackle or just palin missed tackles with ghastly consequences.   There is zero indication that he in fact is better than loosies like Arno Botha and Lappies Labuschagne.   Statistically he is in fact poorer than those two.
*   Francois Steyn and JP Pietersen - even though they are comparatively young has lost pace at an alarming rate and Steyn let himself down by being grossly overweight in 2013 and 2014.  His weight had an impact on his knee and that just aggravated the situation.   be it as it may Steyn should not anywhere near the Springbok team if his performances over the last two years are anything to go by.  Pieteren is a good wing - but very slow as well.   He is definitely not a center.  if given playing time and put under a strict training regime he may recover some of his lost pace.   That brings me to Serfontein.  He got into the team on a more regular basis because of injuries to De Villiers and Fourie and an outburst on dubious grounds by Francois Steyn - was the only younger center who was utilized on a more regular basis.   Some allegations about his performances are true - he played a crashball game far too often, but some of the allegations are absurd and borders on hysteria.   What is abundantly clear is that performance wise Serfontein was miles ahead of Francois Steyn. 
My personal opinion remains that coaches should undertake fair and reasonable performance assessments on  all players and if those are indicative that players do not perform up to the required level - they should be phased out.  There are way too many reputation players who think they are irreplaceable - and as a result think they only need to do the minimum in tests and whose performances are not really on par with many of the youngsters.  Those players in fact should not be kept pass their sell-by date.                                                

Oh boy "the coaches should undertake fair and reasonable performance assessments"....what a stunningly brilliant idea.

 Part of their job I am afraid - but Meyer definitely does not do it - otherwise some of his favoured players would never have made the Springbok team.

Well, Meyer gave these players chances:

09 - Pienaar, Reinach, Vermaak, Van Zyl
10 - Lambie, Goosen, Jantjies, Boschoff, Pollard
13 - Jean, JJ, Taute, JP, de Jongh, Serfontein, De Allende
04 & 05 - Etzebeth, Kruger, Lood, Bekker

I could go on, but, the points are clear. He has given many players chances to stake a claim at a Bok jersey, but whenever he gives the fans what they want, things go array. When he sticks to his "favourites" the Boks are better. If you don't believe me, have a look at the last EOYT!

 A am not sure whether you realize what you are talking about.  Lets look at the players mentioned:
1.  Pienaar was an established Springbok in 2007 already.  Meyer purely fell back on him when Hougaard did not meet requirements.   Vermaak, Reinach and  Van Zyl were fill ins due to injuries of Du Preez and Pienaar.  I mentioned the fill-ins above.
2.  Goosen played from the bench in 2012 after Morne failed dismally.  He had very little playing time, but was used as a bench full back against Italy in November 2014.  He is what I call a fill-in player forced onto Meyer and dropped out of the team, when the besotted Meyer fell back on Steyn in 2013 and part of 2014.  The latter was so dismal in the 2014 tests Meyer was forced to bring in Pollard.  Lambie was a Springbok from 2009.
3.   Jean was a Springbok already in 2003 - he was not one brought in by Meyer.  Taute came in for two tests in 2013 and then dropped like a hot potato - another fill in player because of injury to the dismal Francois Steyn.  De Jongh - poor as he is -was in the Bok team in 2010, but only played two tests in 2012 and because of abject failure in the Murrayfield and Twickenham tests  was sent packing.  JJ was brought in because of failure by Taute and De Jongh and did not last very long either.  When it came to outside centers, Meyer was floundering around like a chicken with a chopped of head.   Since 2012 he utilized 9 players as 13's and has not yet found a suitable player - because he never gave players a chance to settle in.
4.   Bekker was a Springbok long before Meyer was appointed.  Etzebeth was the only forward selection not forced onto Meyer as a result of injuries.   The rest came in as a result of injuries and was never given a chance to settle into anything.  
IF YOU READ CAREFULLY AND MANAGE TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH  YOU MAY FIND  THAT MEYER BASICALLY ONLY BROUGHT IN NEW PLAYERS when forced to do so as a result of INJURIES.    

 Bekker was discarded too soon. He was unfit and off form in basically all the tests he played.Vermeulen got his chance because Spies was injured. JJ and De Allende got a couple of chances out of position. Pollard and Willie were unforced selections and quite brave from Meyer at the time. PSDT in the forwards as well. Lood?

Which player  has not been selected and given a chance who is a clear cut test prospect? That is to say a player who has done well at S15 and has no weaknesses which will be exposed at test level.

I can think of no such player.

 Can you think at all?  What is said above is that Meyer persisted with his set of players and occasionally being in younger players to replace players temporarily not available and then drop the players and bring in some geriatrics to replace players.  
The younger players do not get a chance to settle in and prove themselves on higher level.  He has done it repeatedly in the past.
However, your indication that Springboks who flop in Super 15 suddenly turns everything around and succeed on test level is ridiculous.  It just does not happen and the flops on Super 15 level are also flops on higher level.  That is why performances of players should be evaluated by Meyer and when players flop - they should be replaced. 
The idea that age does not performance levels of players - which you constantly ignore - is equally ridiculous.   Your preaching that older players should remain on the basis of experience and reputation without any regard to present performances is just plain rubbish.        

 @Draad. Bekker was never discarded by HM. He discarded himself with his move to Japan by not negotiating a contract with a get-out clause. 

Added to that, Bekker never succeeded at test level even when fit. Like I say, was every bit the Wynand Olivier. And I didn't see any complaints for Bekker leaving either. The Argie disaster was spoken of as one of the worst lock performances ever.

 Bekker was three times the lock wee matfiled ever was. Matfiled is not a lock and that should be obviosu to everyone. 
It was a tradgedy that the show pony kept Bkeer out when Bekker was in his prime and the show pony was loafing in the backline and messing up. No wonder Bekker went off to Japan!! Much like Howard is going from the Stormers. You give a guy a raw deal long enough and he goes. Bekker of course like any rugby fan with rugby acumen knew he was miles better than pap victor 105 kg! Bigger faster and superior in ever way.
What is also very obvious is Meyer went backwards in 2014. Can he get back into the saddle. One hopes so but with wee matfiled messing up our tight 5 one has to wonder.
We also has Loubcher as the quota backline coach!!! How patheric is that. Meyer should do a Jake and get in an Eddie Jones ASAP.

 cerudunce windpomp those wanting wee matfiled retired are those who really care about the boks doing well - thoese supprting wee victor are those who have been conned big time by the conman.
Only those totally duped by the conman victor would call folk matfiled haters. We dont hate poor victor we just want him gone because he is such a poor backline player! It also leave one a tight forw ard short! 

Head to head Matfield always outplayed Bekker, much to my chagrin as a Stormers supporter. 

 2010 Bekker was the best lock in the world before his injury that is.

 Do u reckon Bekker is good enough to make the Boks RWC Team DbDraad?

 The problem with Bekker is that he has played "soft rugby" in Japan over the past two and a half years and will be 32 years old by the time the WC came around.   He has had no rugby since March this year and is likely not to be matchfit.
We cannot go into the WC with unfit players and that fact is clear as well.   Fourie du Preez is a similar case.  He is "working quietly at home on his fitness" - but we know by now the result of that.  He played a game against the so-called internal team - and then one further test against Wales - but in the next game got injured and was out for the rest of 2014.  That injury showed us what the result is of not being match-fit - it leads to inevitable serious injuries.
The same problem and even more serious than in the case of Du Preez - would eb encountered by bringing in Bekker - at the time of his departure for Japan a far better lock than Matfield is at present.  
However, in his case Bekker has at the age of 29 announced his permanent retirement from international rugby at the time of him signing a Japan Club contract and I do not think there is a chance of him changing his mind on that issue.   Hiss being named in this threat as a potential lock is therefore not realistic.
A pity is that useless Victoria does not realize that he is way past it and should enver have come back to play rugby - he just buggers up the whole Tight 5 situation by his presence.        

 Hakwa, sadly the Bekker ship has sailed. Great player but too injury prone. 

clevermike
RE: The popular concensus Bok pack
May 10, 2015, 08:02:27However, in his case Bekker has at the age of 29 announced his permanent retirement from international rugby at the time of him signing a Japan Club contract and I do not think there is a chance of him changing his mind on that issue.

A link to this announcement would be great because from  what I can remember he said that he has only put his international career on hold. In fact, I seem to recall that, towards the end of 2014,  there were talks of negotiations between the Sharks and Bekker about a possible return to Super Rugby in 2015.

 Ceradyne
I cannot remember Bekker's words exactly - but I think he as far as I can remember he did say did say he won't play anymore international rugby until his contract with his Japanese Club expires.   That I believe is next year - when he will be 33 years of age.
His negotiations with the Sharks came to nought because of the fact that his Club will only release him for tests - not Super 15 rugby.  
Bekker will be 33 years next year and he is not as stupid as Matfield - trying to extend his rugby career way past his sell-by date.  

Oh OK. So the announcement of "his permanent anouncement" has now become a "I think........... as far as I can remember............" one.

Do you have a link to where we can find the story about the breakdown in the negotiations with the Sharks as being "....because of the fact that his Club will only release him for tests - not Super 15 rugby..."?