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
28 Oct 2015, 17:08
#41
28 Oct 2015, 17:08#41

Geez dumb Dutchie is it a taal thing with you or is it age.


Let me spell this out for you.......now read it slowly, translate into taal if need be.


Lood missed a tackle in the first 10min.......it was a rugby error......excusable as tackles are missed, we missed 20 in the game.......with me so far?


Useless Matfield committed an offence, in a moment of stupidity with 15min to go..............this was not a rugby error, it was a player being an idiot and making contact with another players neck......knowing full well we had a penalty.


My guess is the difference is beyond you......were you a plumber in your day?

BO
BokBFClub Pro421 posts
28 Oct 2015, 18:10
#42
28 Oct 2015, 18:10#42
 I love the logic...So if we had lost 7 - 6 without another penalty. Then Lood would still be your hero?  
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 18:22
#43
28 Oct 2015, 18:22#43

No you dumb fuck......Lood missed a tackle, that's rugby.....I can excuse that.


What I cant excuse is an experienced player knowing we have a penalty coming our way slap bang in front of the posts, taking it upon himself to clean a player out by making contact with his neck.


Are you toooooo fucking stupid to work out the difference......its like trying to explain the obvious to a 3 year old.


Geeez how thick are you BokBafoon?? 

CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 18:34
#44
28 Oct 2015, 18:34#44
 Nope. I am just not hell bent on pinning the outcome of the test on one player alone. I take the entire game into context. The yellow card against Habana. That was as stupid as Matfield's offence. The time of Habana's charge on Carter's kick. Had he times that right, he could have been OK and Carter could have missed the kick. That is another two points right there. Then I am not even touching on a lot of other daft mistakes by other players that cost us that game. One little thing that went different could have changed that game in total.
Be honest for once. Are you 100% sure that we would have won that game, had VM not made that illegal tackle. You see, Dave, this is the issue here. Unlike you, I am not claiming to be pencil in the packet when it comes to rugby but the one thing that I do know is that I very seldom try to pin the outcome of a game on one particular incident. That is you and your mate Tokkie's speciality.You have decided, well before the start of the RWC that the culprit for failure was going to Matfield, come hell or high water. That, and that alone is the reason why you keep on p!ssing about that penalty.
In addition, it gives you an escape route out of the crap play by some of your blue-eyed boys. Pollard has proven that he is, at this stage, nothing but an average flyhalf. Nothing special. Willie Hop Skip and Jump Le Roux has done nothing spectacular and had a crap semi-final. Lood was absent. De Allende was OK'ish in the semi-final. Need I go on? 
PS. Of course your sugar daddy, ou Tokkie, will jump in and attack what I have said about the players in the above paragraph in an attempt to get the spotlight on Matfield again and away from his boytjies. Those are not the only culprits in that game, mate. They were only a few examples. All in all it comes down to what I have been saying for ages. SA Rugby is in the dwang from top to bottom. Our showing in the RWC is not an indication that our national side was not up to scratch. The performance of our national side is one of the symptoms  of how crap rugby in SA is, in total. 
It is going to take one hell of an effort and a very long time to fix it. Bringing in Ackerman and Swys is not going to change rugby in South Africa. They can bring in any national coach they like but in less than four years everybody is going to shout for him to be fired. That is the reality.
  1. Our first coach post '92 was John Williams. In less than two years they wanted his blood. 
  2. He was succeeded by Ian Mac who was fired prematurely by Louis Luyt, who brought in Kicth Christie, who rode Ian Mac's wave and won the world cup. 
  3. He was unfortunately ill and had to pull out. I would put money on it that his head would have rolled the first time that he showed signs of loosing. 
  4. He was succeeded by Markgraaf who was going to be the Messiah. He was fired due to players setting him  up for a fall and he was quickly replaced by Carel Du Plessis. 
  5. Dup was fired the moment that he got it right only to be replaced by loud mouth Mallett who said that the SA rugby supporters -that is you, me, Mike, Moz, and everybody else around here - knows feck all about rugby and should keep quite. 
  6. He was fired at the first misstep, i.e. criticising SARU over ticket prices. He, himself made a balls-up of his RWC campaign but he is still the flavour of the month because of his 16 (not 17) consecutive wins. 
  7. He was succeeded by Harry Viljoen. Another Messiah. He was going to run the Boks like a business. Need I say  more? He pulled out prematurely before he could be fired.
  8. The next tool was Streauli. Another Messiah. He was selected on the back of his "massive" sudden success with the Sharks, a bit like Ackeman's sudden success with the Lions. He was going to bring back strict discipline, etc. He was fired.
  9. Jake White, after him, was fired despite winning the RWC. PDV, our first "black coach" took over. He won the TN and he beat the B & IL. He was effectively fired. 
  10. Then came HM. If he does get fired as well, it will just be a repeat of the pattern. 
  11. HM's successor, if he is fired, will in all probability not last beyond 2019.

All the while we are treating the symptoms, i.e. by firing the national coach, while we should be treating the causes, i.e. fixing the useless SA rugby set-up.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Oct 2015, 18:36
#45
28 Oct 2015, 18:36#45
 Dunce
I do not have to check - in the case of both Autralia and New Z ealand they did not play the same lock combination continously on a basis similar to the Springboks.  Watch of those teams played the same number of games we do - yet their locks played the following number of games:-
New Zealand
Retallick    =    4 gamesRomano     =    2 games  Whitelock   =   6 games
Australia
Douglas     =    5 gamesSimmonds  =    3 gamesMunn        =    3 gamesSkelton     =    1 game
New Zealand played Whitelock in all six games - but 3 of those was against wek opposition and it was not necessary to go all out in those games.  Austraia rotated their locks and made sure they are fresh.  They had a very difficult pool to operate in. Because of the Japan BS every game SA played in was techniclly a play-off game requiring all out  effort.  That is why for instance De Jager had the hoghest tackle count of any player in the WC.
Get it stupid dofd.
   .       
BO
BokBFClub Pro421 posts
28 Oct 2015, 18:53
#46
28 Oct 2015, 18:53#46
 Thanks spamex I will type slowly so that you can try and keep up.

I did not mention Victor in my post, you however are like a dog with a bone on a one eyed crusade without any reference to balance. I am not excusing the reversal. However those points still had to be taken and nothing is a given in a Semi. You probably didn’t see Carter miss an as easy kick….. Carter is better than any kicker we had on the park with a shit load more experience and BMT. The FACT that 7 points WERE scored with the Lood miss can not be disputed. Victors cock up MIGHT have seen us narrow the gap but we were still behind.

Trust you were able to keep up I know it is quite complicated
CE
CeradynePro9,374 posts
28 Oct 2015, 18:55
#47
28 Oct 2015, 18:55#47
Ahh now there is a qualification coming through. The others have played weal opposition. Pity we had such an overwhelmingly strong pool. And what about the number of games that our locks played?
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 19:11
#48
28 Oct 2015, 19:11#48

Bokbafoon so in a nutshell you are saying we could have missed that kick that useless Vic deprived us of.......my guess is that I your best shot you ignorant prick.


I can excuse the Lood miss, I cannot excuse Matfield' stupidity

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
28 Oct 2015, 19:12
#49
28 Oct 2015, 19:12#49
 You really are a stupid C U N T - that is the best that can be said about your knowledge and understanding of rugby.
The answer remains - Matfield was a dead loss as a squad member in the WC - dunce.

  
SA
Saffolk Captain30,741 posts
28 Oct 2015, 19:13
#50
28 Oct 2015, 19:13#50

Vlagshit, yes I am saying that given how the game panned out in the end......had Vic not fucked up, we would have won.


My overriding issue with stupid Vic is his plain stupidity that cost us.....I can excuse that.


I can excuse Lood for missing a tackle, that happens  

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news