DEDezertFox
Pro2,288 posts
03 Jan 2015, 17:58#3
You should know I only posted this to give you a platform to expose your bias. Congratulations Michael *pats head*.
03 Jan 2015, 17:58#4
You also have to take into account that we gave you 10 points in the First Half, through direct mistakes, and played quite poorly throughout that match. We were not a patch on ourselves even against NZ the week before.....
DEDezertFox
Pro2,288 posts
03 Jan 2015, 18:01#5
Actually Becs, England completely dominated our halfbacks and centres. They were strong in the lineout. Bad decision making cost them, the platform was there.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
03 Jan 2015, 18:38#6
Matfield has been a liability all year, one of the prime reasons the Boks are failing to assert themselves. He is a physical liability. Its funny how since Matfield has returned, we have only won 55% of our tests against the major nations......case closed.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
03 Jan 2015, 18:59#7
Lestat lying again......so in your pathetic eyes Eastmond and Barritt dominated Serfontein and Jean......what a pack of lies. As for the halfbacks, geez......Farrell was so poor he got dropped......stop bloody lying man, its pathetic
DEDezertFox
Pro2,288 posts
03 Jan 2015, 18:59#8
Well, all evidence to the contrary Saffex. All to the contrary.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
03 Jan 2015, 19:00#9
Provide the evidence, liar
DEDezertFox
Pro2,288 posts
03 Jan 2015, 20:20#12
"All
the so-called tackle assists was exactly that - the other player
already had the tackle doen - and Matfield made an assist. What was he
doing taking up the scrumhalf position - mostly buggering up the game."
Liar Michael at work again. Hiis tackle assists were impactful, the only player that didn't require one was Bismarck, but t's still listed nonetheless. He took up the scrumhalf position because Reinach was NOWHERE to be seen. He would pass it out often to a forward to drive again and hope Reinach would be there. On one occassion he had to pass long to get our exit strategy going. Not Victor's fault, but Reinach's fault. had he joined the ruck mindlessly, we may have been penalized or turned over. Michael, it's a serious thing to consider whether or not there is any value in talking to you. You lie constantly. You get personal and never back anything you say up. I have posed so many questions, given you every opportynity to make a case for what you say, and you come up with nothing. You dared me to post the details of this test with Matfield, and once again you only ended with egg on your face.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
03 Jan 2015, 21:02#13
There is no way that Matfield was piss poor since he came back into test rugby. Matfoe;d is physically the weakest lock in the top 6 nations and is dominated by opponents all the time hence -
* his fear to call line outs to himself;* his weak tackle efforts and missing of tackles;* his poor and ineffective ball carries in traffic; and* the ease with which he is pushed out of rolling mauls.
All the above is clearly in evidence in each game he plays in. Any fanciful writing to the contrary is paintiing a seriously defective picture to the contrary as to his real contribution in tests. Dave is right - he is destroying the effectiveness of our Tight 5 combination - which was totally sub-par in all tests this year in which he played.
Meyer made some seriously poor selections since he was appointed as coach - Matfield must be the worst selection he made. .
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
03 Jan 2015, 21:38#14
We saw the effect of losing Matfield when he was carded against England......the Poms mauled it in for a try from 35 metres. Victor strengthened our scrumming after Lomp's poor performances against Argentina. Our loosehead side never had an issue in 8 tests since Matfield returned.
Facts not bias.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
04 Jan 2015, 05:24#15
Dave
It does not help to argue with dimwits about Matfield - they would never admit that the man is a liability for the Springbok team - not an asset.
sharkbok
Captain23,463 posts
sharkbokCaptain23,463 posts
04 Jan 2015, 06:48#16
Matfield has never given a go forward enforcer approach. He provides brains in the pack, even it that means standing aside. He often functions as a loosie, outside of set piece phase. With the likes of Fat Albert in the pack it is all good. Still I would prefer 2 specialist fetchers, so Matfield may be a limitation in this regard of the required amount of ball carriers.
However I still think the best way to go is having a backrow combination of Louw-6, ,Coetzee, Vermuelen-8. 3 experts fetchers,as well of 2 of them being strong carriers
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
04 Jan 2015, 07:51#17
If it comes down to having Coetzee as my second fetcher, I'd rather go for Matfiels and another power loosie. Coetzee is energetic, makes tackles and runs hard. But he runs without impact, charging into the first tackle, never stepping or offloading. Perhaps more of a bench option.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
04 Jan 2015, 11:05#18
Mozart
"I'd rather go for Matfiels and another power loosie."
What has this got to do with fetching and ball carrying. Lets discuss this crazy sentence:-
This is a complete idiot writing the above. Matfield is useless in Tight 5 play - so he is to be supported by a power loosie - in this case Alberts. The latter is useless in ball carries - a serious liability in defense and of absolutely no value in ball protection and recovery. So what will we have - two players incapable of ball protection and recovery and have to expect from the other two loosies to both protect and recover balls. - while having two duds to do what?
This is not the first time that idiotic isue was raised by Mozart. When the selection of Juandre Kruger at lock was brought up and it was pointed out that he had no grunt - Mozart cam e up with the same idiotic idea.
A lock is a lock - a loosie a loosie. Both have different fuunctions and to expect from a loosie to do the work of a lock and vice versa - is the most crazy idea ever raised on this Board.
Lets face facts - Matfield is useless in Tight 5 play and Alberts is useless as a loosie. The combination can only cause a total breakdown in both lock and loosie play. We lost our domination in the Tight 5 as a result of that crazy selection of Matfield by Meyer and the loosie selections have cost us inagdequate performance by our loosies - since we ewpect from two loosies to do the work of three.
04 Jan 2015, 13:09#19
We had no "tight 5 domination" against Argentina in Argentina and Matfield wasn't playing.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
04 Jan 2015, 13:54#20
Funny that since Matfield arrived the Boks have a 55% win record against the major rugby nations. I wonder why that is......I'll tell you why, it's because the old man is a massive liability.
Case closed our results with Matfield on board speak volumes. He is useless these days.
04 Jan 2015, 14:09#21
And there I was, soundly under the impression that rugby was a team sport. Meanwhile it is actually a game played between two number 5 locks with 28 other clowns running around for love and charity.
DEDezertFox
Pro2,288 posts
04 Jan 2015, 17:09#22
"It does not help to argue with dimwits about Matfield"
Translation: It arez stoopidz ta insultz da dimwitz bowt viktor coz we aint gotz no factz ta bakz upz da stuffz we sayz en dey dun listenz to da insultz.
@Saffex: I'm a little disappointed to hear you speak like that. You clearly no better but succumb to your hyper-emotionality once again! Our troubles throughout the year were scrum domination and a lack of penetration in the centres. It was not the result of Matfield. Our lineouts were better, our restarts were far, far better, our forward power was not compromised. When the team was lethargic it was with and without Matfield. I even posted stats showing that Matfield was one of the hardest working players in the earlier tests. And against England? Matfield was THE hardest working player. Who was protecting our halfbacks at ruck time? Matfield. His ruck cleans and continual work in defence were vital. Not Duane, not Schalk, not Eben or Coetzee was able to match that. If there is a weak link in the chain then you must look elsewhere.
I was challenged to have a look at this test with the specific attention to Matfield and the critics have found that all was not what they had expected. you can either learn and salvage your battered credibility by conceding errancy or stuff your head further up your rear and be a fool forever. If you have any time stamps to give me to prove otherwise then provide them. You have no business of insulting people for not conforming to your views if you don't provide evidence. I have once more given you all the platform to make a case for your opinion. Now take it.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
04 Jan 2015, 17:25#23
Letsallbemorons
Matfield the hardest working player against England? He made as many bugger-ups as possible - yellow card -penalty - possession loss and 2 missed tackles - was a lot of hard work that helped England massively. Sure h tried his damnedest to benefit England and very little to the advantage of the Springboks.
The facts you manufacture to benefit Matfield is BS in buckets. Same as your "facts" about Morne Steyn, and the rest of the poor players you support all out.
DEDezertFox
Pro2,288 posts
04 Jan 2015, 17:37#24
Michael, as I have said provide the proof! Give me the time stamps. Not one player did more than Matfield in that test. If you feel so strongly about that statement being incorrect then provide the evidence. I've backed myself up, now it's time for you to produce something. And to correct you. Matfield's only error was sacking a maul, dropping a high-ball. No missed tackles as you stated. But that's j ust like your bogus claims of Morné's missed tackle numbers in Perth! Listing more tackles than all the defensive situations he was involved with. And you speak of making things up *rolls eyes*.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
04 Jan 2015, 17:50#25
I provided Matfield's stats and that is good enough for all reasonable people to see what his real contribution against England was. You managed tohide the missed tackles and even stated he took an $English line-out throw-in - while what he did was penalized.
The rest of your jargon is a statement of what a lock should do - but with the exception that Matfield is a physically- weak player compared to other locks.
DEDezertFox
Pro2,288 posts
04 Jan 2015, 18:03#26
No Michael, you posted errant stats. All that I stated is all that was there. If you say something is hidden, then provide the time stamps. I listed the lineout steal, because it was an active contribution to the game. That the Boks were penalized because of Eben does not dismiss the fact that he did steal that ball. Were I to omit it I would be guilty of hiding information. You would like me to do that of course, so as to create a narrative that supports your deceitful narrative.
