FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  What the pro Matfield are missing

What the pro Matfield are missing

Started by Saffolk 49 REPLIES874 VIEWS· 27 Oct 2015, 21:14
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Oct 2015, 21:14
#1
27 Oct 2015, 21:14#1
Let's for one moment ignore the mechanics of old Vic's attempted clean out and focus on the real issue. Why would a leader and experienced player knowing full well a penalty advantage was on offer attempt to clean out a player, thereby running the risk of committing an infringement?
What was this experienced player thinking about? 
The floor is yours Matfield supporters 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 22:04
#2
27 Oct 2015, 22:04#2
 What the pro Lomp rabble are missing is Jerome Keino
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
27 Oct 2015, 22:13
#3
27 Oct 2015, 22:13#3
When you play with an advantage you know you have secured the original penalty, even if you infringe. The Boks committed to continuing play right up to the point of kicking ahead with Willie chasing and the All Blacks securing the ball, which negated the advantage. That's why Fourie passed, why the ball was carried up, why Matfield and Nyakane were clearing the ruck, why we played on yet again with possession from that ruck. It's not rocket science. 
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,281 posts
27 Oct 2015, 22:22
#4
27 Oct 2015, 22:22#4
Matfield finished with his worst game as a Bok. 
He messed up the 3+ best opportunities he had. He seemed rattled when he was on the pitch. I think he probably was not ready to play after his recent injury- which was a re injury. 
Something that highlights his career and perhaps explained the longevity is how rarely he was injured. He usually plays the whole match as well- much more than any tight forward. 
The Lood try was embarrassing. It was a regula tion under 13 tackle
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
27 Oct 2015, 22:57
#5
27 Oct 2015, 22:57#5
 Two opportunities....one of which took a marginal TMO call. I hardly think his ball loss in phase play was an opportunity lost.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Oct 2015, 23:39
#6
27 Oct 2015, 23:39#6
 Ah so you carry on and infringe with the prospect of committing an offence and have the penalty reversed as old Vic did. You sound as stupid as Vic clearly is. Having gained the penalty there is absolutely no advantage to cleaning a player out unless you are fucking brain dead.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
27 Oct 2015, 23:41
#7
27 Oct 2015, 23:41#7
Just as I thought Moz no answer regarding old Vic s stupidity...instead Lood gets mentioned.
A little tip this is not about Lood 
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
28 Oct 2015, 01:45
#8
28 Oct 2015, 01:45#8
I answered similar blather on another string, can't be bothered to do it twice.  
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 06:38
#9
28 Oct 2015, 06:38#9
"Having gained the penalty there is absolutely no advantage to cleaning a player out unless you are [removed]ing brain dead."

Or unless you're trying to secure possession so you can continue trying to utilize your advantage, which the Boks were clearly trying to do. If the team made a call to take the penalty, Du Preez could just have dropped the ball the moment the penalty was awarded. The call was clearly to keep playing under the advantage, and that's why you clean out a ruck: because you're playing rugby and you want to secure possession so you can keep playing. It's not a difficult idea to grasp because play continuing normally under advantage only occurs after virtually every infringement in every game of rugby - unless you don't want to grasp it because it interferes with the story you that you are trying to sell yourself in your head.
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
28 Oct 2015, 09:03
#10
28 Oct 2015, 09:03#10
 
Nah ... when time's running out ... and your behind by a mere 2 pts ... one would think you secure the winning points as quickly as possible and move on from there.

You don't risk losing the advantage ... anything can happen ... an attempted neck roll for example ... or a bad call from the ref ...

It was an opportunity that should have been pounced on immediately.

Matfield fluffed it. 

Let's face it, Meyer's call on bringing this hasbeen back cost him not only the Japanese match but a shot at contesting the final.

Meyer and Matfield ... a losing combination. 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
28 Oct 2015, 09:08
#11
28 Oct 2015, 09:08#11
 Snapster old vic was trying to assert himself. Can you imagine how embarrassing it is to to be attempting to play lock when you are the papest forward on the park! Hence the kbbs love victor.
Ou victor was calculating on leaving an image of himself as being a destructive clean out man. Of course in reality when ou victor hits a ruck nobody notices! Hahahahahahahahhahahahaha haha
BR
BrycyPro4,671 posts
28 Oct 2015, 09:23
#12
28 Oct 2015, 09:23#12

 ..Bean Brain, for yr reading pleasure, Victor has spoken out about how the Boks should actually be playing moving forward...and also Meyer talks about what it's like kissing his sister...laugh a minute these yarpies...if there not whacking themselves in the groin with a golf ball it's something else..


Springbok veteran Victor Matfield says the next generation of South African players must inspire fear in their opponents if they are to go on and win a third World Cup...maybe a scary mask or something?


The 38-year-old lock said it would be easy to get the squad up for the third-placed game, after the disappointment of a 20-18 loss to World Champions New Zealand on Saturday, as for several players it will be the last time they represent their country.


"It is never a meaningless game when you put on a Springbok jersey, but we will have a good break these next two days and then the coach (Heyneke Meyer) already said we will get together on Wednesday," said Matfield.


"There are quite a few guys who will have their last outing in a Springbok jersey so we would definitely like to make that special, make that a good last game for the most of us.

"Whoever we play people need to start fearing the Springboks again so whoever we play - either Australia or Argentina, we need to have a good game against them."

His remarks with regard to the third place game contrast to those of Meyer, who made clear his disdain for the match.


"Mentally, it's very tough," said Meyer in the immediate aftermath of the semi-final loss.

"It does not mean anything to me. It is like kissing your sister."


Matfield, whose tournament was hampered by a hamstring injury, said the team had done well to come back from their opening loss against Japan and while they may have lost, they came extremely close to going through to the final.


"It all started with Japan which was probably one of the darkest weeks ever," said Matfield, who was man of the match when the Springboks won the trophy in 2007 beating the then defending champions England in Paris.


"After that, although I didn't play I had some of the best weeks with the Boks - just to see how the guys pulled together, how Heyneke (Meyer) got the guys behind Fourie (du Preez) and Schalk (Burger).


"The guys became close and we really had a belief that we can do something special. Last night (Saturday) we were one penalty away from being down in the dumps to doing something special but unfortunately it didn't end well."


While the All Blacks advance to the final and could become the first team to win back-to-back World Cups and also the first to win the trophy three times, the Bok lock would not go as far as Meyer in dubbing them the 'greatest ever'.


"It is difficult to say the greatest - there are different eras but it is a great team," said Matfield, who joins English side Northampton after the curtain comes down on the tournament.


"I have been fortunate enough to play in teams where you just know you are going to win the game, it doesn't matter how far you are behind, you know you are going to win the game in the end.


"I must say when I went on, I never saw panic in their eyes.

"They just looked like a calm, solid unit that know what they are doing and have confidence in each other.


"I think they have so much confidence in that team and they have great leaders making great decisions at the right times.

"Even yesterday in that second half, they just played the patient game, kicked in behind us and kept us in our own half."

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
28 Oct 2015, 09:41
#13
28 Oct 2015, 09:41#13
 matfiled as shrewed as ever. deflecting comment away from himslef and the debacle he was invovled in. Lets apply some logic here. If this great team can only win by the dubious (being polite here)  reversal of a penalty agaisnt a Bok side playing very dom rugby thanks to the coach. how good are they really.The answer is they are a good side not never a great side. Had Jake been kept on after the RWC win instead of them jumping in with a quota coach (Clever timing as he was bound to win some matches with the team he inherited) how very different things would have been. Boks would have been ruling the roost ever since.
Then you have to subtract all their wins that were ref assisted!!! Its a complete travesty to rate this a great side. Add on the RWC they burgalled via our own Craig Joubertand the elimination of the Boks via bryce lawrence in the greatest display of bent reffing ever witnessed.If these things were factored in nz would be asking themsleves why they are performing so badly. Why cant they beat the Boks anymore etc.
Beeno giving some much need perspective. Well said Beeno. Bravo, bravo! 
Beeno shold be nominated for Nobel Prize for sports commentary? 
 

PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 09:49
#14
28 Oct 2015, 09:49#14
"Nah ... when time's running out ... and your behind by a mere 2 pts ... one would think you secure the winning points as quickly as possible and move on from there. " 
CC, if that's your argument, then Fourie fluffed it by playing on instead of putting the ball down immediately and taking the penalty.
Also, we weren't behind by 2 points at that time. The score was 20-15.
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 09:57
#15
28 Oct 2015, 09:57#15
Just to clear up the situation:
Incident occurs: minute 62Time left: 18 minutes Scoreline: NZ 20 - 15 Boks
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
28 Oct 2015, 10:25
#16
28 Oct 2015, 10:25#16
 Pakei some very simple maths for you.If you use your calculator you will find that if you add 3 to 18 you get 21.
Next to avoid any confusion clear your calculator. Then input the Boks revised score of 21. Then from that figure (IE the 21) subtract 20 (which was the final amount of points the wee abs achieved). You will then di scover that the Boks win by 21 points to 20.
If you are still having problems dont ask dom JW!http://sc.mogicons.com/c/370.jpg
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
28 Oct 2015, 10:39
#17
28 Oct 2015, 10:39#17
 
Fair comment, Pakie.

Both Fourie and Matfield messed it up.

It's like the occasion was to big for them to think clearly.

A bad day at the office for the team ... once again.


PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 10:44
#18
28 Oct 2015, 10:44#18
You can't enter a revised score of 21, because once we accept that penalty, the game as it transpired becomes void. A new sequence of events is initiated - as I have said before. Instead of the All Blacks kicking out and getting a lineout, they are now kicking off from halfway. Everything has changed. No play that occurred in the final 18 minutes will occur now. The Lambie penalty is no more. There may be a different one, there may not. The All Blacks may score points of their own. It's an entirely different game now than the one written in the history books. 
But it's okay, Beeno. I accept that this concept may be beyond people who can't look at this situation as more than a simple mathematical equation.
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
28 Oct 2015, 10:53
#19
28 Oct 2015, 10:53#19
 Hey presto, Beeno the magician convinces himself "a loss is a win" - again!

At least he has a nice costume
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 10:57
#20
28 Oct 2015, 10:57#20
 Poor Tokkie, Beeno and Dave. They are about to enter a very crap phase of their lives. Rugby sans Victor Matfield. WTF are they going to b!tch about? Unless, of course, they join becs and become Northampton supporters....... 
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 11:13
#21
28 Oct 2015, 11:13#21
 "Let's face it, Meyer's call on bringing this hasbeen [Matfield]back cost him not only the Japanese match but a shot at contesting the final."
The team that played Japan:
  1. Victor Matfield
  2. Victor Matfield
  3. Victor Matfield
  4. Victor Matfield
  5. Victor Matfield
  6. Victor Matfield
  7. Victor Matfield
  8. Victor Matfield
  9. Victor Matfield
  10. Victor Matfield
  11. Victor Matfield
  12. Victor Matfield
  13. Victor Matfield
  14. Victor Matfield
  15. Victor Matfield
  16. Victor Matfield
  17. Victor Matfield
  18. Victor Matfield
  19. Victor Matfield
  20. Victor Matfield
  21. Victor Matfield
  22. Victor Matfield
  23. Victor Matfield

That means that Matfield not only had 138 runs, making 451 metres but he also made 102 tackles. Pity the doos missed 16 of them. Then again he had 7 line breaks but he also stuffed up by having 4 knock-ons. Her was good in the set pieces though. He took all 15 line-out balls and he had two line-out steals as well. In addition he did not loose a singles scrum. Quite remarkable for a 38 year old, I suppose.
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
28 Oct 2015, 11:20
#22
28 Oct 2015, 11:20#22
 So if a side is denied three legitmate tries the sequence of events changes and one cant say the side was robbed. BWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH MY ACHING SIDES.Ou pakie is cracking up under RWC strain egged on by that villain JW - the dark duck ! 
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
28 Oct 2015, 11:23
#23
28 Oct 2015, 11:23#23
 Dr Moz could you confirm ou pakies assertion. Not that it matters re my conclusion but it wo uld be interesting to know if he has his facts right. Ou pakie does go off at tangents from time to time. Egged on by the dark duck!
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 11:49
#24
28 Oct 2015, 11:49#24
Everything that happens has an effect Beeno. Every legitimate try not allowed, every missed tackle that becomes a try, every goal made or missed. It all contributes to the final outcome, and collectively we can say yes, all those incidents add up. 
Can we blame one incident 18 minutes from the end of a match as the single, definitive cause for the match being lost? No.
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
28 Oct 2015, 11:51
#25
28 Oct 2015, 11:51#25
Beeno, many have tried to explain simple things to you, e.g. scoreboard results, infringements, penalties, etc. but you never seem to be paying attention. 
By the way, that Croc disguise doesn't fool anyone, we know who you are

PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 12:19
#26
28 Oct 2015, 12:19#26
Okay, my final input on this sordid thing. If you want to go the mathematical route, it still makes more sense to deal with points actually on the board than points potentially on the board. 
In this case then, the infringement that took NZ from 17 to 20 points ultimately made the difference on the scoreboard. Who do we blame then?
-----------
59' No! Straight off the restart Etzebeth is penalised for coming in from the side and the ABs will extend their lead once more. 60' Carter was never going to miss from there. SA 15-20 NZ. 
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 13:24
#27
28 Oct 2015, 13:24#27

What utter bullshit......as an experienced player with a penalty advantage accruing, the last thing you do is try clean players out given the potential of exactly what happened to stupid Vic


If you cant see that you are stupid.


Vic cost us the semi and that's a fact


He has been utterly useless since his return to the Boks and that moment of utter stupidity by a so called experienced player was the icing on the cake for useless Matfield


Bye bye semi final - thanks Vic


Experience my arse  

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Oct 2015, 13:32
#28
28 Oct 2015, 13:32#28
 What really happen here is that some members try and get Matfield off the hook for a bad display during the semis and try claimed he was a good replacement when he came on from the bench.
There are always the escape mechanisms from Mozart and Co for anything where Matfield made mistakes and they are going to go overboard to defend their golden hero.  
So lets agree whether Matfield was of real value in the EC tournament this year.   Looking at the games played a huge announcement was made about the most experienced side ever to represent the Springboks.   The side played probably the wprst game ever played by a Springbok team and they lost the game.  The most experienced player of all was wooden and looked like a zombie going through the motions - mostly standing around in the non-performing backline and not to be found in the Tight phases of the game.  With a stretch the rating for Matfield in that game was 5/10 - so lets accept he was bog ordinary.
That was followed by the Samoa  game where in 60 minutes on the field of play did as much as De Jager did in 20 minutes.   Again he moonlighted in the backline and made one ball carry making 8 meters.   He took two throws in line outs against a very poor lie out set up of the Samoans and that was about it.  At best a rating of 5,5/10.
Final appearance was in the semi- where he buggered up badly, making mistake after mistake - all mentioned above.  Rating 3/10 at the utmost.
So did Matfield make a worthwhile contribution to the Springbok WC campaign this year?   There is no way that he can pass an evaluation of his performances and it proves that his presence in the squad was a negative and to the detriment of the team.    The pro-Matfield crowd can argue un til they are blue in the face - a lock like Du Plessis or Willemse would have been of greater value than the under-performing Matfield was.        .   

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 14:22
#29
28 Oct 2015, 14:22#29
clevermike
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 20328RE: What the pro Matfield are missing
October 28, 2015, 13:32:18

 What really happen here is that some members try and get Matfield off the hook for a bad display during the semis and try claimed he was a good replacement when he came on from the bench.

 As opposed to what.........? Some members trying to pin everything that went wrong, including the loss against Japan, on Matfield?

SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 14:28
#30
28 Oct 2015, 14:28#30

Matfield was part of the Jap loss along with the rest of the Boks


In the semi, Vic threw the game away single handedly


Spot the difference   

PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 14:47
#31
28 Oct 2015, 14:47#31
Vic has a penalty reversed with the Boks 5 points behind and 18 minutes left to play . 
Kriel misses a regulation tackle on Mafi that hands Japan the winning try on a platter with no time left on the clock.

Spot the difference.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 14:56
#32
28 Oct 2015, 14:56#32

Kriel missed a tackle in a nothing game......that's rugby.....players miss tackles, kicks etc


Useless Vic committed an offence with a penalty accruing......that is not rugby, that is just plain stupidity.


The end score was 20-18, Vic cost us 3......spot the difference, better still wake the fuck up  

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Oct 2015, 15:00
#33
28 Oct 2015, 15:00#33
 Pakie
You are talking tripe here - I was looking at Victor Matfield's performance throughout the series and also bore in mind that he not only had the penalty reversed, but was also out-jumped by Whitelock in a line-out throw by the Springboks and ultimately spilled a ball as well.  
There was no remarks made about Kriel at all - what was remarked on above was on Victor Matfield and his contribution to the Springbok campaign in this WC.   However, I think that the normal diversion tactic is used here - so what else can one expect from the members who idolized Matfield and can see no wrong in his performances.
Any reasonable SA lock would have done better in the WC campaign than Matfield did.  He was a waste of space in the squad.      
PA
PakieCaptain17,321 posts
28 Oct 2015, 15:08
#34
28 Oct 2015, 15:08#34
I digress. Arguing against this kind of blind stupidity can only lead to premature aging.
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 15:51
#35
28 Oct 2015, 15:51#35
Vic' aging is not premature, he is just too fucking old to be playing rugby....age has also obviously affected his brain  
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 16:01
#36
28 Oct 2015, 16:01#36
 Saffex
 
Status: Hall Of Fame 
Posts: 14187RE: What the pro Matfield are missing
October 28, 2015, 14:56:33

Kriel missed a tackle in a nothing game......that's rugby.....players miss tackles, kicks etc


Useless Vic committed an offence with a penalty accruing......that is not rugby, that is just plain stupidity.


The end score was 20-18, Vic cost us 3......spot the difference, better still wake the [removed] up 


  •  0 Likes

Loodvoet missed a tackle in a semi-final that was not a nothing game.
The end score was 20-18, Loodvoet cost us 7.................. spot the difference, better still wake the [removed[ up.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Oct 2015, 16:02
#37
28 Oct 2015, 16:02#37
You disagree - but cannot point out anything of substance Matfield did in the tournament.  Fact is the end result is that De Jager and Etzebeth was overplayed - having to play extra because Matfield was injured and useless when he was not injured. 
Not a new injury - he was the same during Super 15 and in the RC.  Even when he did play in the RC his performance was not a house on fire either.  Fact is his return from retirement went hand in hand with a decline in Springbok rugby resulting in half of the matches he started in being lost.   Our forwards lost their competitiveness and it showed in the results achieved over the past 14 months.
Not blind stupidity - realism on my part - blind stupidity relates to supporting a non-performing rugby player to play for the Springboks based purely on reputation.      
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 16:10
#38
28 Oct 2015, 16:10#38
 "Fact is the end result is that De Jager and Etzebeth was overplayed"
Bwahahahahahahaha.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Oct 2015, 16:21
#39
28 Oct 2015, 16:21#39
 Dof Dunce
Nobody plays 6 games in 6 weeks on test level without a break and because of Matfield's absence and when he did play his piss poor performances they had to play game after game.
Hell - you remain a infantile idiot with a rugby brain capacity of a 5 year old.  Not a laughing matter either - I am really sorry for you.     
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 17:08
#40
28 Oct 2015, 17:08#40
 Have you even checked how many game time other players had? Or are you only concerned about De Jager and Etzebeth? I'll stick to this one question for now. I don't want to confuse you just yet. 
↓ LOAD MORE (page 2 of 2)

More from Rugby

More news