MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
05 Jul 2014, 22:01#2
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahaha
10 won, 7 lost (58.8%)Lineouts on own throw14 won, 1 lost (93.3%)
Seven lineouts lost for the Mighty Stormers. That's the equivalent of a flank that makes seven turnovers. The guy is indispensable .
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
05 Jul 2014, 22:32#3
Quite right Mike he is a huge disadvantage to the bulle. Send the show pony packing.(Its unthinkable that he continues for the boks. Its madness he is still palying for the bulle. It would be daft if he made a Vodcom cup side. etc etc.)
next start with your two younger props.Next find a balanced loose trio.Next play JJ on the wing.
Beyers looked out of his depth so buy willie Le Roux.
Ask Rassie to come and coach the bulle would be another option.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Jul 2014, 23:15#4
Mozart
Why do players just brush Matfield aside and continue with their ball carries - why does Matfield not protect balls when he is the nearest Bulls player to the tackled player - get pushed away and the opposition players force on a penalty? ?
Matfield showed us again today that he remains physically incapable of producing the goods - he is too weak for the current players
Anyway did you watch the game or are you just quoting the stats. However, you are too feeble-minded to understand anything about rugby in any event.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
05 Jul 2014, 23:23#5
LMatfield0/000/2/45001013/13/310/0
Matfield makes 13 tackles and misses 1. He takes 3 opposition lineout balls....you should be ashamed of your cowardly attacks on this Bok legend.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
05 Jul 2014, 23:51#6
Mozart
Have you watched the game - I asked you that before?
I do not only look at stats - I looked at what happened on the field of play. I respect the Bok legend for what he produced in the past - the rubbish he produced today can be respected by nobody. Fact is - he was the leader of the Tight 5 - who buggered up badly and dear Victor also made a remarkable contribution to the bugger ups.
Matfield is physically not strong enough to be competitive anymore - that is a fac t that is the gist of the problem.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Jul 2014, 02:36#8
blikkies
My problem is not only with the tackles made - but the fact that as I stated he was just brushed aside by 3 players and he did not do tavckle ball protection even though he was nearest to the tackled player. he was just not strong enough to push aside the opposing ball recoverers and fell flat down next to the tackled player.
However, in the main the tackles made were weak and not really effective - the player went forward in the tackle and where off-loads were not made - the attacking team recovered the ball very easily.
That is not all - where Matfiueld did carry the ball - in one case he was tackled and there was a possession turnover - in one case he hund on and was penalized - in two cases he made poor passes that ended up with the Bulls losing territory or at best eb put on the back foot.
One line out was won by the Bulls and the ball from Willemse turned up in the hands of Matfield. Rhodes just took the ball away from him and another Stormers attack started.
Despite the tackle story - as well as the line outs - Matfield was in fact physically not strong enough and his performance today was really not up to standard. He looked tired and not really interested in the game.
sharkbok
Captain23,294 posts
sharkbokCaptain23,294 posts
06 Jul 2014, 02:38#9
Bakkies is not needed, we have number 4 locks to burn. Matifield should be in the squad, but with Etsebeth a certainty, it is going to be a competition of Lood vs Matfield.
Matfield is still the best lineout and kick off forward in the world, so it is a tough decision.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Jul 2014, 04:24#10
Blikkies I initially thought the same thing about Victor. But watching him play I can't see much difference. It's counter intuitive for a 37 year old guy....but he gets around the park and takes the balls in the air at least as well as 2011. Look at the Stormers lineout stats vs the Sharks and the Bools. Versus Matfield and the Bools they won 59 per cent and 7 per cent on Bools ball. Versus the Sharks and Lewies they won 75 per cent and 40 per cent on Sharks ball.
That illustrates the value of the man....relative to his competition he was way more effective than Lewies against the same opposition lineout. As for the tackling even Willem Alberts goes back when hit by a big runner. Victor does a good job of preventing the offload....and his play around the park is far more fluid than most locks. He passes brilliantly.
So, while my brain tells me there has to be some retrogression....I can't see it in the performance .
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Jul 2014, 10:00#11
Mozart
If "So, while my brain tells me there has to be some retrogression....I can't see it in the performance.", you really must be blinded by prejudice. There is retrogression - the man is physically not up to standard anymore. Yesterday he was really poor - and not a factor at all.
That against a team of rookies - what will happen when he has to play against stronger and younger locks fro Australia and New Zealand? He will just cause the Tight 5 to be weaker than they should be. There are two issues here:-
* No lock only has to do one job - namely line out takes.* Although Matfield puts in quite a number of tackles - the tackles are weak and not really effective.
Matfield is no way effective in ball carries anymore and he tends to give away penalties as well in trying to carry balls and is ackled by the first defender and go down straight.
You quoted the above stats of Matfield and I eflect it again here:-
Matfield0/000/2/45001013/13/310/0
Now lets look at the stats of De Jager:-
de Jager1/050/3/627101311/15/120/0
Now you tell me in all honesty - who was the better of the two locks.
* De Jager scored a try - Matfield did not come near to that* De Jager 6 ball carries gaining 27 meters - Matfield 4 ball carries gaining 5 meters* The rest of the stats are pretty even
You must remember that the Sharks is one of the top log teams and the Stormers below the Bulls on the log. That indicate the quality of the opposition that was to be contended with.
Just one thing - Matfield seemed listless and disinterested yesterday. He looked the same in the Scottish test - but even more so yesterday. Question - does he have the stamina to play five games in 5 succeeding weekends? I doubt it very much.
In my view the best Meyer can do is to put him on the bench - but even that is taking a bit too far. Time to move on and forget about Mtfield and Botha - they are just not up to it any more.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Jul 2014, 17:09#13
Mozart
Once again - have you watched ht match or are you just raving as per normal. I do not know how you can even say they were pretty even - is line outs the only function of Locks that count?
Look - id you did not watch the matches 0 you should adnmit it openly and not made bullshit comments.
What I wrote about Matfield was absolutely clear - based on things that happened during the match. What I said is true - he was brushed aside - robbed of a ball in standing position - when looking sheepish - his ball carries poor to non-existent - his passing poor - his tackling in the main weak and not productive at all.
Whether you like it or not Mtfield is not up to the required level of physicality required form a Tight 5 player at this stage. He is g oing to let us down badly in the RC.
AJArthur John
Pro1,748 posts
AJArthur JohnPro1,748 posts
06 Jul 2014, 17:22#14
You can place all the stats you like with respect to Victor Misfield but the truth is plain to see.
HE IS OVER THE HILL
He is finish and klaar..........Mozzie.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Jul 2014, 17:26#15
AJ
Did you watch the match? Mozart did not and now comments on things he has not seen- pathetic.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Jul 2014, 18:20#16
What a pathetic response from a loser. You quote the Lood stats at me....as if its your trump card . I take you apart.....open up huge chasms in your perception. And you come back with a weak you didn't watch the game. Then AJ sneaks up like a little poodle and nips at my ankles.
It's a case of man against boys.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Jul 2014, 20:06#18
Dof Doos
I only comment on matches i have seen - not others. You have not sen the game either - I assume - otherwise you - louse that you are - would have dealt with the topic under discussion.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Jul 2014, 20:12#19
Mozart
What have you taken apart without seeing the match? Nothing - you are more and more looking like the true rugby illiterate and prejudiced rubbish you are.
Matfield was a major part of the reason why the Bulls were so pathetic - De Jager was a major part of the reason why the Cheetahs won. Huge difference.
Come back and raise you pathetic comments once you have seen the two matches .
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Jul 2014, 21:28#21
You miss the point totally Oom...you showed Loods' stats as proof. I simply destroyed the numbers you raised. Game, set and match.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 01:00#22
Mozart
You destroyed nothing with the stats - you proved that you have never watched the matches and saw the difference between what De Jager produced compared to what Matfield produced.
You deliberately refused to deal with anything bar the line outs issue. The ball carries issue was taboo - because it showed Matfield up badly. So was the issue about the try swcored by DE Jager - as well as the role he played in the try scored by Can der Walt. Game set and match.
F acts remain - Matfield on the day was poor and physically inadequate - and no arguments to the contrary has been raised by you.
07 Jul 2014, 02:14#23
How stupid is this? Compare the stats from two different games in order to fight your stupid losing battle. And to make it more interesting you compare the stats of a number 4 lock with that of a number 5 lock.
Then again, if we have to follow your example, let's compare your golden boy Goosen with Stormers flyhalf Coleman (the two winning team flyhalves).
Pos
T/A
Pts
K/P/R
MR
CB
DB
OL
TO
Tack
LO
Pen
Y/R
FH
Goosen
0/0
12
14/9/3
9
0
1
0
1
7/2
0/0
3
1/0
FH
Coleman
0/0
11
9/28/6
20
0
3
1
2
5/1
0/0
0
0/0
Who kicked away the most balls? Goosen
Who passed the least number of balls? Goosen.
Who ran the ball the least number of times? Goosen
Who gained the least number of metres? Goosen
Who beat the least number of defenders? Goosen
Who made zero offloads? Goosen
Who had the highest missed tackle rate? Goosen.
On top of that he gave a way three penalties and he got yellow carded.
The only dimension where he came out on top , was the turn-overs.
Goosen is crap. He kicks too much. He doesn't pass the ball. He doesn't run the ball. When he runs he gains fokol. He cannot beat defenders. He cannot off-load. He cannot tackle and he is a disciplinary liability.
Have you started this thread to divert the attention away from how crap your little ray of sunshine is?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 02:32#24
Dowwer Doos
Have you seen the game? Now be for a change honest and answer or YES or NO.
How stupid can the idiots be. What about the kicking issue. Goosen kicked mostly fom his own half of the field and because it was good strategic kicks - constantly send the Sharks back to line outs within or near their 22 His kicking game was strategic and very - very good, Unlike the piss poor aimless kicking of Morne Steyn - his kicking game was the basis for the success of the Cheetahs. It had the Sharks on the back foot continuously and that was a major reason for their loss.
If you have seen the game - on which you post ignorant statements - you expose yourself as being a complete idiot.
You are pathetric - you have not seen the matches and like Mozart adept in writing BS on this site. So go and cry in a corner - because the Bulls put up a pathetic show - with nobody more pathetic than Victor Matfield.
07 Jul 2014, 11:39#25
Hahahaha. Jou arme donnerse pateet. You walked straight into that one. You have no proof that I have not seen the games.
Can you remember saying:"Stick to the stats - that is where you cannot be faulted"?
Yes, Maaikie, those were your own words after a display by Goosen was explained in the same way that you did above. When the stats do not support your fantasy they are bullshit and do not reflect the truth. When they do support your fantasy, they are the be-all and end-all and leads you to saying stuff like: "Stick to the stats - that is where you cannot be faulted".
You are the one always talking all kinds of bullshit without seeing the games. I can give you an entire list if you want to.
The best one, though, was were you said that Bakkies Botha was so poor in the HC game against Exeter that he was taken off in the first half and replaced by Ali Williams and was subsequently dropped for the next game as well. To top it all, according to you, that also spelled the end of Bakkies' days of starting games for Toulon. The truth was that had you watched the game, you would have known that Ali Williams and Bakkies both started the game and that Bakkies was taken off with severe cuts in his face after been stamped on. For that reason, he was not selected for the game the following week. Oh yes, and had you watched the Exeter game, you would have known that Bakkies was replaced by Suta.
As far as Goosen on Saturday goes...... You are trying to conceal his crap game by defending his kicks. What about the fact that Coleman beat him hands down in all the other "departments" of the game?
BEBeeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BEBeeno1Captain40,032 posts
07 Jul 2014, 11:51#26
Mike you are absolutely correct Loodt is miles ahead of matfiled who MUST retire. Its a laugh this geriatric is still conning his groupies!
Goosen is looking better and had a nice game. One hopes his injury troubles are over and that he can setle down and build his game.
Ou windpomp doesnt understand that playing the amount of rugby Goosen has has not helped goosens cause.
ou windpomp you seem a bit bitter about the bulle being thumped by the Mighty Stormers second team.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 11:55#27
Dofste Doos op aarde
Have you seen the game - Yes or No? If not stop showing your ignorance - you useless fool.
Anyway this thread is about the pathetic Matfield - and since you have not seen that game either - it would be better to shut up on that one as well.
07 Jul 2014, 12:58#28
You are assuming that I haven't watched them. Be that as it may. You afford yourself the luxury of commenting on games that you haven't seen. Then you remind me that the thread is not about Goosen. Didn't you bring Morne in earlier as well?
Goosen is crap.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 13:05#29
Dofste Doos
I have never commented on games I have not seen - where I was negative about Morne Steyn I based my observaations on games I have seen - not anything else.
Morne Steyn is not crap - he is worse.
What about dear Victor?
In any event the value anybody can attach to your comments are really not worth reading since you carry on about games you hav e not seen.
07 Jul 2014, 13:27#30
Wouln'y you like to rethink the remark about only commenting on games that you have seen befaore I give you a few examples?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 13:35#31
Sure - give me a few examples - am looking forward to that one. And Morne remains the Stade Francais bench player - does that not tell you how really crap he is. .
STSun-Tzu
Club Pro713 posts
07 Jul 2014, 15:01#33
If you want to know how clueless Michael is, here's some perspective: He doesn't rate the defence of Frans, Matfield or Alberts, but backs Goosen as the best defensive 10 in the country, he who hasn't landed one dominant tackle in his senior career.
The problem is that Michael sees the games, but never truly watches them. Much like people who say music is their life, but cannot hum the melody to their favourite songs they've heard 500+ times. He doesn't understand what he is seeing. The net result is that he is guided by how he feels about the spectacle unfolding in front of him.
07 Jul 2014, 16:19#36
"....young Ruan Botha owned Victor "
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 16:21#37
Dim Sun
I never said that Goosen is the best defender in the country - what I did say is that he is a damned site better than Miserable Morne insofar as defense is concerned.
Alberts so-called strong tackles happen so rarely and the same with Steyn that ist is not worth writing songs about 0 like Mozart and you do. However, they also miss enough tackles to fill a book - more than the actual stron tackles they made. The so-called strong tackles are in the main bog-ordinary tackles.
Cme now I said Matfield buggered up oin the game on Saturday - why no comments on that one - or did you not see the match?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 16:24#38
Mozart
Have you watched the game by now - if you had not then please don't show your serial stupidity by commenting on the game.
Just one comment: -
"clung on" means Matfield's tackkles.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Jul 2014, 16:28#39
No...."clung on" means JJ's tackles. Mike I will let you know, in an honest report as always, when I have watched the game. But don't let this restriction bother you. Your reports can be written before you watch the game....watching wouldn't change anything.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Jul 2014, 16:31#40
Sorry Mozart
If you are indeed honest about watching the game - as well as the Cheetahs one - yu will find what I wrote as correct. I did not dd anything - I did not see anything that did not exist either. So lets have your hionest report and make sure you are sticking to the truth please.
