CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 02:00#2
OK
Absolute balls.
Lets look at the stats and see who did the schooling:-
Matfield0/100/4/76000110/01/110/0
PS du Toit0/000/2/828121015/46/010/0
The old and useless Matfield only called one line out to come to him and although he managed to take one line out from Du Toit - he went in general absent from participation in line outs. For the rest Du Toit was better than Matfield in every other aspect of the game - ball carries, tackling and strong impact.
I hear already the remarks about Du Toit missing tackles, but those were open-field tackles where he missed tackles on backline players.
The other comment was about Spies - totally ineffective - but for that run at an angle where he scored a try. For the rest he did as little as Matfield did on the day.
One wonders sometimes where your ideas about rugby performances originated from - since your comments indicate actually the opposite to what really happened on the field of play.
Incidentally - this is similar to the tripe you wrote about Bakkies Botha after the Scottish test in 2013 and we all know where that ended up. Please think before ymou write garbage - because that is what you achieved above.
01 Mar 2015, 03:32#3
Watched the game Du Toit was all over Wee Matfeild. Please have Matfeild in the world cup, as long as you have him in your tight five NZ well most likely well always win .
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Mar 2015, 05:30#4
Victor orchestrated the lineouts like a master....he didn't need to take the ball he had the Sharks watching him like a hawk and leaving everybody else open. When he decided to compete he soared above stefanie with ease. A master class for the youngster.
This comment from Planet Rugby captures what really happened out there:
The try also ensured that the final quarter of the match was played on a knife’s edge and it could very well have been the influence of the evergreen Matfield that brought calm to a Bulls team that snatched defeat from the hands of victory in their previous match
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 08:04#5
So it is not the performance - it is the "soaring" above Du Toit - which happened in exactly one line out - he was too scared to call line outs to himself. But it is the 2 line outs he won that made him the great line out forward. And then there was the calm he brought to the team - that really is a joke - because he contributed nearly zero to the team efforts on the park.
Matfield looked anything but "evergreen" - the nearest he came to green was when he was sprawled on the ground - being pushed out of the way at will. Just watch the first two line outs and you will see that.
Incidentally the schooling was massive. In the Test Rugby stats Pieter-Steph du Toit got 275 points - the physically-deficient Matfield 230. Pieter-Steph schooled Matfield big-time.
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
01 Mar 2015, 10:23#6
I don't know what Vic did to piss off Bismarck, but it worked well. For bok team mates, that's strange. Bridges were burned.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 10:32#7
DBdraad
From an off-side position Matfield grabbed Bismarck by the shirt in a maul while Bismarck was trying to recover the ball. Bismarck being unprepared from the attack ended up on the grass - so did Matfield. He then gave Matfield a hard slap in the face - should have been harder.
Matfield was looking for it all along. He did not endear himself by trying to get to the Sharks players whenever they discussed something on the field. This guy is becoming obnoxious and they will revenge themselves on him sooner rather than later.
01 Mar 2015, 10:56#8
Bissie's lineout throwing wasn't the best...
DBDbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DBDbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
01 Mar 2015, 11:37#9
Mike, Bismark told Vic "fok jou" twice after that incident. To me it seemed that there were more at play than that particular incident.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 13:35#10
Could be - but this is the type of thing that will ruin the Springbok team should Matfield be retained. He really has rubbed some players up the wrong way recently and then Mozart talks about calming influence - he does not mention that. I think the players think he is not bringing his part in games - especially in scrums, mauls and line outs and that they wrongfully get the blame for things stemming from his deficiencies.
Unpleasant top have a lock which is physically-deficient and then having to be criticized for negative incidents.
BY the way - I wonder who spoke to Rich, which let to his recent article about Matfield? He would not have come up with that article without comments from Springbok team players. The Ollie le Roux comments would also not be made without discussions with present Springboks.
We all know that Matfield is a pal of Meyer and that anytime he tells Meyer a story the latter would fall for it. On the last EOYT the team went to pieces and the negative results stemmed from it. It was evident in the Italy test in particular. Matfield was moonlighting in the backline and when the ball was passed by Lambie - he chickened out and Lambie was on both occasions blamed for making bad passes.
Matfield had a history of undermining the captain - at the time John Smit - and I would not be surprised if it is not continuing with Jean de Villiers. That certainly would cause factions in the team and lack of unity of purpose.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 16:06#12
MNozart
Utter balls - Matfield was over the last year and is always a powder-puff and powder-puffs never win matches. If they have a proper lock - the forwards of the Bulls would do much better - but they are sitting with a physical-deficient dummy.
If it was a red-card offence, then I will eat my hat. If Bismarck hit that idiot with a fist - he would have been out for three months with a broken jaw.
You are not objective either. Why did Matfield attack Bismarck from an off-side position from his back? Matfield had no business in doing what he did in that instance. But then Bismarck has known Matfield for years and knows what a bad influence in teams - he was bad in the EOYT as well.
I do not think that Matfield has much respect from the Springboks and even the other four Tight 5 players of the Bulls - but that they know that he is Meyer's "witbroodjie" and what he tells Meyer - the latter will believe.
As Rich and Ollie le Roux indicated - this guy is bad news for the Springboks and that i s a fact - whether you like it or not.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Mar 2015, 17:20#13
Rich and Ollie only woke up a sleeping giant. I bet the Shar ks wish they had kept their traps shut.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 17:34#14
Oh my goodness what an utter insult of a comment. PSDT was huge while Vic was absolutely nowhere. Schooled him how exactly? Would that be the one line out steal he made or conceded.
As the stats show PSDT was twice the player wee Vic was. Jacques du Plessis was far better than Vic
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 17:37#15
What was that about Jan not being strong. Last I checked he out muscled his way through two defenders to score the try.
How exactly do you conclude that Esterhuizen is a cart horse....based on what exactly. I take it this is about as accurate as Jan having no strength.....bwhaaahaaaaa
Your mate Vic was useless again
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 17:42#17
Got to love this complete shit written about Vic winning the game for the Bulls - orchestrated the line outs bwhaaahaaaaa......must have been all 8 metres gained and all those defenders beaten...not to mention how much he physically imposed himself on the game.
Moz you really are speaking a load of horse shit.
But Moz be so kind as to point out exactly what Vic did not the bullshit about orchestrating for that counts for jack shit....we need actual physical contributions
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Mar 2015, 17:55#18
Well if we need actual physical contributions best not to look for them from Stef, he was weak in contact yesterday. Nope, every report I have read and the match commentators concur, Victor was the central figure in the Bools win.
Now that's settled any comments on JJ who seems increasingly desperate and surely the slowest centre in the game, Esterhuizen. Are you losing faith in these favorites?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 18:07#19
Mozart
Matfield tried to play as a loosie - not as a lock. He made weak tackles and now suddenly he is the all-conquering hero in your eyes. Taking about one line out on own through and one on opposition throw-in does not count for acceptable line out performance. If their was a forward that made a total difference to the performances of the Bulls it was Labuschagne - not Matfield. His ball protection at breakdown situations was invaluable for the Bulls and his tackle rate was high. He made as many tackles as Matfiuerld and Spies did combined - so what is the big song and dance about poor Matfield winning the game for the Bulls?
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 18:11#20
Steph was weak in contact - that is nothing short of a lie.
I asked how you conclude that Esterhuizen is slow? I never said he was fast but he certainly is not slow.
JJ had a good game certainly better than de Jongh who was a physical liability again. JJ was the best SA 13 this weekend.
The commentators said nothing about Vic other than assuming he had made all the steals and then had to concede it was only one and that Spies and du Plessis had actually made one each.
Vic did nothing all game except make a few tackles. PSDT was huge as the halftime highlights of him showed. He was physically imposing. He made Vic look like a pretender.
du Plessis was far better than Vic for the Bulls
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Mar 2015, 18:17#21
You didn't see Kriel just leave him for dead....a lumbering ox ...Jake was dead right on this kid.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 18:26#22
Um Esterhuizen was standing still and Kriel was running at pace but more to the point Kriel is lightening fast Esterhuizen is not, but that does not make Esterhuizen a cart horse just as Jan is not.
There is very little Jake got right.
01 Mar 2015, 18:33#23
PSTD made on the only linebreak for the Sharks
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 18:43#24
PSDT had another strong game. Vic was useless. But hey he did make his tackles and act like a twat. Bismark should have bunched him properly
01 Mar 2015, 19:19#25
Matfield finally did something of note in the lineouts, only took him a year. PSDT got beat in the lineouts even though a major part of that was Bissie's poor throws, nevertheless he's still a better 5 than Matfield. In the tight and the loose PSDT leaves Matfield trailing in the dust, also doesn't come with a disruptive nature.
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 19:23#26
What did Vic do in the line outs? He took one ball stole one ball and lost one ball? So what exactly did he do of note in the line outs?
01 Mar 2015, 19:27#27
Marshalled well, it's not all about when the player takes the ball when it's thrown to him. I'm not saying it was a brilliant performance in the lineouts, just that he's actually done something there now.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 19:54#28
Mozart
Looking at the game again - if that is the best Matfield can produce in any given game then we have really gone back in rugby performance assessment.
* He carried the balls seven times - making a total of 6 meters in the 7 carries - so he was of no effect in ball carries at all. It has become routine that Matfield fell straight down every time he gets the ball.
* His line out takes have become a rarity. In three games played he took 8 own throw line-outs in 3 games. The real reason is he called line-outs to go to all and sundry and virtually never to him. He is reputed to be a line-out specialist - but there is no sign of it at present. You go on about Du Toit - but in the last three games he played in he took 20 tine-outs. In the time Matfield took 2 line-outs from opposition throw-ins and Du Toit took 2 as well. So in total Du Toit took 22 line-outs in 3 games - Matfield took 11.
* Matfield's fame is now according to you centered around the number of tackles he made - never mind the quality of the tackles. Players he tackles go forward in the tackles and there is no turnover in ball possession as a result. Matfield is often assisted or often assists players in making tackles - on his own the tackles would be much less effective if he is not assisted by ot her players. The question remains is making tackles the only key element required from a lock? You seem to think it is - since in other key functions he is ineffective.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Mar 2015, 20:16#29
Everything Victor does adds value. Take another look at Step's try...it was Victor who powered through to get the Bools on the front foot. The man adds value in almost every phase.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
01 Mar 2015, 20:31#30
Imaginary value - I am afraid. His stats indicate that the value is virtually non-existent in practice. That famous try of Serfontein - a number of players carried the ball one after another of which Matfield was one. If Matfield made a meter in that case I would be sincerely surprised.
I would watch the game again and see what really happened in that case. I am absolutely sure there was no powering through by Matfield anyway - he does not have enough power to power through anything, leave alone opposition players.
01 Mar 2015, 20:31#31
Scraping the barrel there.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
01 Mar 2015, 20:51#32
Within the 5 metre line it's all about momentum, not metres gained....as should be obvious. Matfield gave the move forward momentum.
BObobbok...
Captain10,129 posts
BObobbok...Captain10,129 posts
01 Mar 2015, 21:04#33
Hilites
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2id0ma_bulls-vs-sharks-rd-3-super-15-2015_sport?start=7
SASaffolk
Captain30,741 posts
SASaffolk Captain30,741 posts
01 Mar 2015, 21:26#34
Ah so it was all about his marshaling was it......talk about a load of utter tripe.
Matfield was as useless as he has been since his return.
I mean 6m gained, zero defenders beaten, 1 line out taken 1 lost and 1 stolen.......give me a bloody break.
Talk about hyping up an average performance while at the same time discrediting a player who gained 5 times the metres beat 2 defenders and took 6 times more line out ball.
It's a joke
02 Mar 2015, 02:22#35
The Bulls had the measure of the Sharks lineout, deal with it.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
02 Mar 2015, 06:41#36
So if you look at Blob's clip you see.....
Just before the Stegman try Matfield makes a key clean out
Just before the Spies try, Matfield drives forward and the ball is fed directly to Spies
And in the Steppie try Matfield gathers a wild knock forward and rather than taking contact slickly finds Step with an instant pass. He has a hand in 3 of the 4 Bools tries.
And gets one official assist, probably for the Steppie try. Dave how do you miss all this stuff.
BObobbok...
Captain10,129 posts
BObobbok...Captain10,129 posts
02 Mar 2015, 07:03#37
Giving Matfield an openhanded smack to the face was shrewd judgement by Bismarck who clearly remembered hearing Joubert explain to the Blues captain that he had no option but to send Triggs off cos under the new law amendment a punch to the face demanded instant dismissal .
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
02 Mar 2015, 07:12#38
Mozart
I do not miss much stuff when looking at a rugby game so lets look at the above examples quoted by you.
"Just before the Stegman try Matfield makes a key clean out"
Just how did he make the "clean out"? Did he for a change enter a maul and made a ball recovery? The Answer is that it was an illusion which Mozart is creating here - something where Matfield really had no roll in.
"Just before the Spies try, Matfield drives forward and the ball is fed directly to Spies"
Matfield did not drive forward in the case of the Spies try - he got the ball and passed it directly to Spies who ran at an angle and the latter scored his try. There was no driving forward in any event.
"And in the Steppie try Matfield gathers a wild knock forward and rather than taking contact slickly finds Step with an instant pass."
This is a vast change from Mozart's previous statement about how Matfield powdered his way forward and caused the try of Serfontein. Now suddenly he picked up a ball knocked on by a Sharks player and passed the ball. What a massive achievement.
Seems to me that Mozart thinks that if Matfield even touch a ball or if he is merely in the vicinity where a try is scored he is given credit for that try being scored. I am not saying he did not have a hand in the Serfontein try - but then we must stick to reality and not invent miracle play like is being done in this case.
