This string is provided so that....

So the OOm seems a bit shy to get the ball rolling, but never fear I'll do the hard work. 
1
Older special players - who are they?    If you say Matfield - go and consult your shrink - maybe he would eb able to bring you back to reality.    Bar schalk - what exactly did Habana and JP do in the game against England?
2
The line out master took exactly 3 line out throws form own thro yesterday and wonder-above wonder - he took one on oppositon throw in as well.  That is not the work of a line out master at all - so come up with the answer.   Matfild called line outs to him in June and took a number of line uts - since then his takes has been decreased by 30% on own throw?  Why does he prsist in calling balls to other players and not to him.
You came up with the excuse about Matfield's line out miss against the  AB's before - and the excuse was a complete hash of garbage.   That is not the only throw he missed recently - there were others as well.   One was even yesterday - but the impact was not as bad as was the AB one.   
He took exactly one kick of yesterday - period - not kick -offs - don't manufacture more.   His only claim to fame now is he took 10 tckles - what a joke - why does it happen?   Because he does not do his work in Tight 5 play and loiter around behind mauls and make some weak tackles when a player carry the balls in that direction.
In the emantime he is a serious liability weakening the Tight 5 completely.  Watch the mauls yesterday and see howthe  Welsh just pushed him out when the Springboks tried to drive.   It really is amazing that you refise to admit that Matfield is a Tight 5 liability.  
3

  bad sign.   He finally made a serious mistake with Matfield - not realising that Matfield would weaken the Tight 5 to the level he actually managed to do.

We now have a situation that we have to look for a strong enough lock combination to rebuilt what has been lost this year.   So we have Etzebth and the back up should come fromn Du Toit, Van der Merwe, De Jager and Willemse.

Any continuation with Matfield will be sekf-destructive

4

Just imagine how much better the scrumming would be if we can also be without Matfield - and with a proper lock who have the strength to support our props.   

5

There is no doubt that Etzebet was good in th lst two mtches - the lone warror.   Matfield showed zdero and was poor on the day.   He lost possession twice and did his standard - gave away hispnormal penalty.   His line out performance has become a lottery.  He takes less line-outs in every game he played in.   Yesterday it was 3 takes with one furhter take on opposition throw-in - his first since June.    One thing was also notceable - Matfield moving to no 3 in the line-outs  - that normally indicates eh was afraisd of competing with the Welsh juming at no 5, but it also neutralizes Etzebeth as a line out jumper.     

And it goes on.....
6 Dubious selections such as Matfield, Mohoje and Hendricks should be eliminated.   Matfield is not really delivering as a line out player and he is a serious iiability in Tight 5 play - not up to standard anymore.
7 The team is vulnerable - having only 4 of the required Tight 5 players (if only we could get rid of the passenger posing as the fifth iTght 5 player - Matfild it would help massively) and a defemsve problem on the wing.    For the rest the team is stronger than the one who met Wales in June.  Morne Steyn is gone and so is the problematic JP Pietersen.    Gurthro the Fat is also not in contention.   

Still more, Slapgat is the best lock of his time Victor Matfield, probably our most respected player in world rugby:
8  I would say that the Blls should play du Plessis at lock - together with Flippie and forget about Slapgat.   That would be the way to go.    If flippie is not available yet they shoud play Nicholaas Janse van Rensburg in the lock position - away with Slapgat.

And the vitriol continues
 9*    Matfield is rubbish - his line out work has gone backwards by leaps and bound since JUne.   Physically weak and useless is Tight 5 play - and like in the past he moonlights in the abckline and does zero in  Tight 5 p[lay.   Anybdoy will be better than this  Slapgat Jolly Jumper. 

More from the poisoned pen in Ballito
 10 Based on the performances of Matfield - there are about  6 locks better than him in SA - he is only in the team because of  his pally-pally rleationship with Meyer.    And his performances are deteriorating game after game.   His claim to fame is his line out takes - but in the last two tests there were only 4 takes per game.   In the meantime he moonlights in the backline and has become noted for weak tackles on poppsong players and for sabotaging backline moves - like happened twice on Saturday.   He brings no grunt to the forward pack and is pushed out and aside with ease and his ball carries in traffic routinely result in no gain in territory and in possession losses or penalties 
That is the case in respect of Slapgat Matfield.   Anybody is better and that includes Du Toit, De Jager, Willemse, Du Plessis and at least four other locks.

 Mozart
Thanks for repeating the sensible things I wrote about Matfield - fact is he is just not good enough to play professional  rugby anymore. 
The hype about the great line out jumper and other junk written about him being so good does not help at all.  The Springboks perform badly since his return to test rugby comparative to last year and the one reason is his selection - the other ebing the below par performances of too many of the "golden oldies".   
So I said that the squad selection in 2007 was good and I felt happy to go to Frace to watch the Springboks play in 2007 - and at the time wrote that the 2011 selection was garba ge with virtuallythe same squad with few exceptions being eelected for the 2011 WC and that I woud ot go to NZ for the series - because the Springboks had no chance of winning anything.   This time around I would ot even bother to watch on TV the Springboks playing - since there is zero chance if Meyer keeps up his resent trend in squad selection for the 2015 WC.      

Glad to be of assistance. In fact I would offer this string for all your Matfield comments...we will just log them on here for efficiency.  

 Mike keep up the good message about that biggest disaster in Bok history wee matfiled 106 kg stringbean backline wannabee! Bwhahahahahahahahaha
DR Moz you have been conned
If Meyer wants to persist with matfiled fire him. Yes its that bad. He is ruining our tight five and if it takes the firing of Meyer to see the back of matfiled so be it. Away with Guthro and oupa as well. We can take a good look at the other older players next year. Hopeully we will see a number of players back next season. 
Over the hill players must go. We must not make the mistake nz is making re wee mcaaaw, woodcock, mealalmu, conrad etc.
 
 

It's a pity Victor and Jean played in this game. If they were absent the youth brigade, so generously represented in Saturday's team would have lost by 20 points and the case would have been indisputable. As it was not one of these newbies, Etzebeth excluded did their job. Coetzee did  a job, but not the job of making us competitive at the breakdown. A total young pop gun flame out.

11   Look - the problem is that at rucks and mauls it is not only one player whoo must pplay a role - he cannot do the job when the tight 5 players stand around behand the maul and does nothing - Matfield style.
The ball recovery on Saturday was left to three players in all cases and they had zero support from Mohoje and Matfield - that is a fact of life.   

"- that is a fact of life."

 Vicki is going to be your new Captain. I bet Mozart is wetting himself just thinking about it.

 "t's a pity Victor and Jean played in this game. If they were absent the youth brigade, so generously represented in Saturday's team would have lost by 20 points and the case would have been indisputable. As it was not one of these newbies, Etzebeth excluded did their job. Coetzee did  a job, ."
IF m auntie had balls - she would have been my uncle.
The Springboks without Matfield would have had a Tight  5 - who would put up a better performance up front.   The useless old F art made error a fter error.   De Villiers played no role in the game - as was evident frohis stats.    A proper Tight 5 would have meant at least one or more successful rolling mauls and less of a bungler than Matfield was in the maul situation.