FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  The Stormers tackle low

The Stormers tackle low

Started by Mozart56 REPLIES945 VIEWS· 24 May 2015, 23:23
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 May 2015, 16:54
#41
26 May 2015, 16:54#41

Yes Blue 90kg is spot on for 10 and currently on form he is our best 10.


There is nothing small about him, as evidenced by just looking at him on telly every week.


He is stacked these days, with big legs.


The lad has transformed his body and game.....most of the clowns passing negative comments are still living in the past.......its a common trait on here......ignorance of the highest order........devoid of staying with the times  

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 May 2015, 17:28
#42
26 May 2015, 17:28#42
 He may or may not be able to play at the next level. But the guy is tiny. Five ft  nine inches tall, with small frame. Get serious. This guy may be able to get his weight up to 90 kgs after eating a lot of salty pizza and downing 5 pints of beer.....but stacked. Hehe. Old Sapp will believe anything about the guys he thinks he has discovered.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
26 May 2015, 18:30
#43
26 May 2015, 18:30#43

As I said get your eyes tested......small frame my arse.......just look at the size of his legs for a start.


Geez Moz you have serious issues with your eyes.


He weighs 90kg, live with it.


Being short makes no difference.....not that 1.76m is short for a 10  

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
26 May 2015, 20:38
#44
26 May 2015, 20:38#44
If that makes you happy Dave far be it from me to rain on your delusions.  
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 May 2015, 23:01
#45
26 May 2015, 23:01#45
 Let me explain one other issue.  I somehow missed the profiles  of the players every time it was given, but saw it tonight.   As suspected - the weight given before the match in respect of Senatla is 83 kgs.   
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
26 May 2015, 23:01
#46
26 May 2015, 23:01#46
 Let me explain one other issue.  I somehow missed the profiles  of the players every time it was given, but saw it tonight.   As suspected - the weight given before the match in respect of Senatla is 83 kgs.   
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 May 2015, 10:13
#47
27 May 2015, 10:13#47

No delusion, just look at the screen and ask those around you if they think Jantjies is a tiny chap....my guess is that they will laugh at you.


Those weights given on Supersport are out of date, they have Etzebeth at 117kg, which is what he weighed when he played for the Baby Boks......he now weighs 125kg plus.


They had Senatla at 1.85m, but he is bigger than 83kg  

DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
27 May 2015, 11:32
#48
27 May 2015, 11:32#48
Weight increase does not change the size of the frame. That's the key point. There is only so much you can do with a smaller frame.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
27 May 2015, 11:36
#49
27 May 2015, 11:36#49
Is your above statement applicable to Matfield as well - thin shoulders, thin legs and thin wrists as well?
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
27 May 2015, 11:40
#50
27 May 2015, 11:40#50
Matfield is not small Michael, were you to meet him in person, I assure you it would be a case of Gandelf and that little hobbit fellow.
BL
bluebokPro3,977 posts
27 May 2015, 11:47
#51
27 May 2015, 11:47#51
I am 190cm and weight around 105kg's and I have met Matfield, and I was hardly intimidated by his size! Also, I don't consider myself to be a "big' guy, just the upper section of average. 
DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
27 May 2015, 11:48
#52
27 May 2015, 11:48#52
 Well, that's your perspective Bluebok, but one not commonly shared by many.
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
27 May 2015, 11:52
#53
27 May 2015, 11:52#53
I'm guessing LeTwat assumes that everyone is like himself . . . a small, weak little weed who never played a minute of rugby in his life.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 May 2015, 12:48
#54
27 May 2015, 12:48#54

Matfield, for a lock has a small frame, he is thin having built up as much as he can......much like Hattingh of the Bulls.


Matfield is not big  

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 May 2015, 14:42
#55
27 May 2015, 14:42#55
But was the Man of the Match in a WC final....where he saved our victory by brilliantly taking Mathew Tait in open field, and by dominating the lineouts. The old tall poppy syndrome is full swing on this thread. The odd thing is, you never see our NZ posters dumping on a guy like Richie. I wonder why? What makes them such decent fans and our lot so embarrassingly petty?
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 May 2015, 14:55
#56
27 May 2015, 14:55#56

Don't get me wrong Moz, Matfield in his day was the best lock in the game. In his prime he had built up to an almost respectable weight of 113kg and was a real force being the athlete he was.......the issue today is that he is long past it, is now a physical liability who offers nothing unique to line-outs or kick offs..........he is a liability in that he is preventing far more worthy youngsters from partnering Etzebeth only thanks to our out of touch national coach.


If the Boks were short of options at lock then I'd have little issue with old Vic playing......but the fact is there are 10 better locks available and it pisses me off no end that a 38 year old physical liability is held in such high regard by our incompetent coach.....the same player who week after week shows what a shadow of the former player he is.....so much so that the old man is in need of a rest.


Its just bullshit, Matfield should not be anywhere near the Bok or Bulls side. He is a liability to both.


If Matfield starts for us in the WC, we wont make it past the quarters  

DE
DezertFoxPro2,288 posts
27 May 2015, 17:15
#57
27 May 2015, 17:15#57
Mozart, it's called culture. Education doesn't hurt either, but that cannot mask poor character.
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news