simple enough question to local saffa brigade, who was better, victor or bakkies and u must choose one or the other, :o)
would love to know why too, can be a short post like the Boks wins last year or a nice long reply like the All Blacks wins, LMAO, :oP
would like a better understanding of how the locals percieve the two, to reply to another thread. i am very familiar with what the majority of the kiwis think of the two and the opinons on the differences are vast indeed, o,o
One is a lineout jumper and the other is an enforcer so their roles are slightly different. Outside of the tight phases, Matfield was more mobile and Bakkies more physical.
I remember the one AllBlack scrumhalf crying when Matfield tackled him(may have been brendan leonard- not sure), and even claimed that Matfield had a steel plate under his arm bandage.
Also the other scrumhalf crying when Bakkies headbutted him in the back.
Victor was so dominat in the lineout in 2009, opponents stopped kicking to touch. I can't think of any other player who had that kind of impact. It's Victor all the way.
@sharkbok,
2 questions for ur post buddy,
1) so the clear winner when forced to choose one or the other is,,,??? o_O
2) when u say the halfbacks were crying, did u mean figuratively crying, like how bryse lawerence figuratively cost the Boks the game, or did u mean literally crying the way ezebeth did burst into tears when he was so touched and emotional to be told he made the team??? -_o
just wanted to know seeing as how i have every AB test and dont know what ur talking about and hoping my sharningan didnt miss anything, :o)
sasuke, Bakkies was better at bullying the AllBlacks who were all scared of him, some even crying figuratively.
Although I would have to agree with Moz, that many teams would not kick for touch because the boks lineout was so strong, mostly due to Matfield.
So Matfield was the winner.
Vic and Bakkies were a great combo, but as individuals they had some flaws. Vic changed the approach of the opposition more so if I had to choose, he would have to be the one. Sorry Beeno! You do have a point with him being a light weight though.
Probably the dumbest question I've read in a while.
They had different roles, different styles and different attributes.
Sasu...
Who is better...
Glen McGrath or Shane Warne?
Bobby Skinstat?
If forced to choose one, I'd go with Bakkies - I have a soft spot for enforcers. Bakkies was great but Etzebeth is going to be even better
Mattfield was far too often moonlighting ineffectively in the backline - therefore my choice would be Bakkies Botha.
Probably the dumbest question I've read in a while.
They had different roles, different styles and different attributes.
Sasu...
Who is better...
Glen McGrath or Shane Warne?
I'm with Flash on this one.
You cannot compare the two, a saying about apples and pears comes to mind.
What a ludicrous question. I was not surprised of course to find ou saSUE at the bottom of this matter.
saSUE thinks retardlick and co out played Etzebeth so clearlry he has no idea about lock play.
Here in the one corner we hav eone o fthe all tiem great bok locks Bakkies Botha an dhe i sbeing compared with a plaetr who wa probably the papest lock ever to pla yfo rSouth Africa a 106 k gstringbean. matfiel dcouldnot drive the ball up one inch so he got behind the player drving up the ball.. h eleaned on rucks and stayed out in th ebackline a much as possible an dfouled thing up there mor eoften than not. Always remeber the words of the great Bakkies (who carried victor all his career) who so telling said - victor doesnt always play in the backline (Our sympathies to you Bakkkies and to think after carrying victor through his career there are those who actually imagine he is your equal or even better!!!!! Astonsishing sttuff! Bwahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha)
What is amazing is how he duped so many folk. I recall how often the media referred to him as big Victor Matfield!!! Thats much like the delusional snapster thinking he is big - Hahahahhaha - sorry to bring it up but hard to resist given the context. a 106 kg lock is tiny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The lesson to learn here is that 106 stringbean locks must never again come near the Boks, Super 15, Currie Cup or Vodacom Cup sides ever again. They have no part to play at lock. A french club got victor over at a huge fee of some R6 million. He flopped at lock so they tried him on the flank and then sent him home.
I take this opportunity to wish Victor well in his new job and know that he has a much better chance of doing a good job than he ever had of playing lock.
Please oaks one doesnt compare sbw with Ali etc. Comparing the great Bakkies to a lock wannabee like matfield is ludicrous in the extreme.
Beeno pleading for reality.
First off, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to compare a #4 lock and #5 lock. Most people understand that your #4 lock is going to play a tighter role in general play and a more supportive role in the lineouts, but I don't believe the initial question on this thread was to determine whether a #4 lock is more important than a #5 lock, it's asking which of Bakkies Botha or Victor Matfield was better at his role and was a more valuable player for the Springboks . . . and in that vein, one could compare a scrumhalf and a prop, never mind two locks.
Now that I've hopefully got the pedants out of the way, I'd like to mention the respective players behaviour and temperament before answering the real question as to which was the better player. In terms of temperament, Bakkies was pretty much an out-and-out thug while Matfield generally conducted himself well on the field, seldom seeking confrontation and even showing some leadership qualities on occasion. As a Springbok rugby supporter, Bakkies often embarrassed me with his oafish behaviour and his insistence on trying to be the tough guy of the team . . . never more so than when he head-butted the smallest player on the field from behind while he was on the ground . . . but that was Bakkies. He saw himself as the "enforcer" of the team - and sadly, young Eben Etzebeth looks as if he's going the same route - which basically meant he'd concede a lot of penalties and free kicks but also made him a yellow card liability. That has to be a factor when weighing up the respective merits of the players and their value to the team.
As a lineout jumper, Matfield had no equal during his playing career and of the locks I've seen, only John Eales can be compared to Matfield in terms of lineout ability. Bakkies was probably the better scrummager and he was also a lot more effective in general play. Matfield's great weakness was his habit of swanning around in the backline instead of getting stuck in and playing to the ball as Bakkies did. It wouldn't have been such a weakness if Matfield was effective with ball in hand, but he had no great pace, penetration or ball skills. Ironically, Bakkies was the better player with ball in hand even if he was probably slower.
If someone had asked me this question before RWC 2011 I probably would have said Matfield was the better player but I will never forget how Matfield (and Schalk Burger) completely stuffed up our backline in the RWC 2011 quarterfinal against Australia. I know there are a lot of crybabies who think that loss was all due to Bryce Lawrence but I'd ask those same excuse-makers to watch that game and count how many times Victor Matfield and Schalk Burger were the first or second receivers in the backline. Please note, I'm not talking about forwards taking the ball up and setting up another phase, Matfield and Burger didn't do that, in that game they actually took on the role of flyhalf or inside centre by trying to beat a man or pass the ball. I know squawkers like Baboon-ou are going to have a fit when they read this and all I'm asking is they count the number of times Matfield and Burger played as backs BEFORE they burst into tears and have a squeal . . . because there's no doubt in my mind that Matfield and Burger lost as that very important game . . . and that's the reason I'm going with Bakkies as the better and more valuable player.
Well done rooitwit Bakkies was indeed a far, far better player.
As for Burger - nobody can accuse him of shirking his loose forward duties or eschewing the hard stuff. An 80 minute goer.
In recent years his ability to off load has improved and his forays into the backline have been fruitful. Your take re BL is ludicrous.
I sincerely hope the great Schalk gets back to top form. He is an all time Bok legend.
I do recall you trashing Schalk rootwit in the year he was IRB player of the year!
@wally west and ek,
cmon boys, the question wasnt that hard. obviously theres a difference between the two, but is it really impossible to find one style of player that u preferred over the other??? o,O
but as for whose better shane warne or glen mcgarth??? thats easy, shane warne is. my cricket knowledge is like bennos rugby knowledge, its nonexistent cos cricket is prob the most boring sport i can think of, or tied with a few others. but u dont need to be a fan to know who warne is, mcgrath on the other hand is not so well known and i had to google him to see what he looked like and i do recognise him, but the wuestion from my perspective is easily answered, shane warne is better.
see how easy that was??? :oP
now why dont u boys give it a shot??? -_o
and kudos to jalapeno and to a lesser extent brother beeno, while one understood the nature of the question (ben10, u know im not talking about u, :oD) both answered in fine detail the varying difference that i was looking for, :o)
I will take
Bakkies and Shane Warne as first picks each and every time.
Victor was great at line outs but as a flyhalf (get my drift) he was useless.
Even John Smit was a better #10 than Victor.
Now be nice guys.
