CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 20:44#2
So the saints won and every assessment by their praise-singer had 7 or 8 points allocated for each player. Not convinced - but since I have not watched the game- I will await the objective assessment of Becs on the issue. Matfield was so piss-poor in previous games so for him not to improve was impossible.
You ignored his string of bad performances and now suddenly come up with this story.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 20:57#3
An objective assessment by Becs....well yep, that should be better than most of your sources. Victor bossed the lineouts....Lomp lossed the lineouts. Spot the difference.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 21:13#4
Mozart
Would you never get rid of the Matfield mania? The man was a disgrace for the Springboks and that fact has never hit home and I suppose will never hit home. Forget about Matfield - he has ruined his reputation by starting to play rugby again after his retirement and did massive damage to SA Rugby.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 21:28#5
Utter rot. Victor came on at minute 59, when the score was 20 to 15....and the game ended 20 to 18. We won the period when he was on the park. He took down SBW twice in that period, when he had breached our defence. Victor is always a contributor....and MOM in the consolation final. And now I see he is ruling the lineouts again...it must really hurt.
GEgeneraltit
Pro3,164 posts
06 Mar 2016, 22:05#6
Matfield is compared to the guest who stayed too long...he just overstayed and destroyed his initial positive imput...this issue was humour a year or 2 ago but now has become tedious and boring...leave Victor alone and him rest in peace...don't worry he won't come back
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 22:29#7
M<ozart
Matfield also on that so-called 21 minutes lost the first line-out on own throw to the AB's and caused the turnaround of a penalty that could have been converted. He was piss-poor for the rest of the game as well, so why come up with the rubbish about how good he was - her was piss poor in the tournament and as seb said he should never have been at the WC,
The MOM story was against the "B" team of Argentina - you jeep on shouting and screaming about that one - while keeping quiet about when De Jager was MOM against the full Scottish team and queried the decision to give him that reward.
That is why most members are sick and tired to see your constant praise singing about a player who had more negatives than positives.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 23:27#8
De Jäger was MOM against a full Scottish team, well not surprising given he only called his own number. The Matfield penalty was a nonsense as opined by several commentators....but you use a dubious penalty to make a point against a player you don't like.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
06 Mar 2016, 23:48#13
Victor was not poor last year, he was still excellent. Brilliant in defense, brilliant in running the lineout. Were it not for his injuries he would never have lost his starting berth....a change that contributed heavily to our demise. Anybody with half a brain can see the flow of contributions and clever touches he contributes....that apparently includes most of the rugby world but not the peanut gallery on the Board.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
06 Mar 2016, 23:48#14
Am I bored by this string of BS on a player who was in his prime 8 years ago and useless and a team handicap in 2014 and 2015? Definitely - and so is ev erybody else.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 03:41#15
Oh gosh, how awful did I bore you....there's an easy solution, stop contributing to it. And stop denigrating the players who have given us our only international successes in the last 21 years.
Still the hypocrisy is stunning...you complain about my defending Victor, when this Board is full of your attacks on him...even of his play for the Saints. Has to be Special rules for you hey Tokkie.
07 Mar 2016, 07:42#16
Yet another desperate attempt by the fool to validate his absurd rantings.
Haaaaaahahahahahahahaaaa!!!
Brain rot!!
You should go have it looked at.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 07:53#17
Mozart
Was last year 2009 - so is this year 2010?
DADevil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DADevil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
07 Mar 2016, 08:20#18
Has Mike ever had anything decent to say about Matfield?
PLPlum
Captain21,007 posts
07 Mar 2016, 08:21#19
I'm confused. There's isn't a poster on here who'll argue how brilliant Matfield was for a long time.
Moz, what I can't understand is why you insist that he's not past it? At this rate you'll be begging his wife to visit a taxidermist when dies of old age. Cumon Mr Moz. Matfield should have kept his assistant coach role, gathered some experience in SA and abroad and then tried his hand at head coach...if he really wanted to remain in rugby that is. Coming out of retirement was a bad idea. I think you're just being stubborn.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 09:30#20
DA
I said a lot of nice things about Matfield prior to 2011 - but I think he should never have returned to playing in 2014. What I was afraid was that he would ruin his reputation by starting to play - and that is exactly what happened.
Matfield's returning to play was reputedly because of a loss of money in a Ponzi scheme - and that was not a sound reason for such a return, since it was based on personal circumstances not related to excellence in rugby and was helped along by his friendship with Meyer - who virtually assured him of selection on the basis Meyer normally quoted "I know what he is capable of" - hence his selection despite dubious performance records in 2014.
The long and the short is that Matfield was a disaster in 2014 and 2015 - hence my negative assessment of him in those years.
07 Mar 2016, 09:37#21
Dumb Ass loves Matfield and Meyer.
He would much rather have both in the mix than risk bringing any form of talent in.
Once upon a time Matfield ruled the world. Sadly time reduced his skill set to that of a blundering oaf!!
It happens to us all.
Most learn to accept this as part of life.
Mozart, Matfield and Dumb Ass think differently on this.
DADevil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DADevil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
07 Mar 2016, 09:58#22
You see Mike
Again, you are basing all this talk on baseless facts.
I will quite easily accept certain posts regarding players abilities and how good they were compared to now, but your posts seldom have concrete facts attached to them.
So now it is a "allegedly" a massive financial loss in a ponzi scheme which brought Matfield back into the equation for the Springboks, and Meyer wanted to help his mate out financially.
Yeah ok
Again you take baseless allegations, and build that into the reason why he should not have been allowed back to play.
Like it or not, but a lot of your posts contain little facts and many various allegations, and that's what a dislike about your posts regarding players like Matfield
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 10:41#23
DA
With respect - the Springbok team Tight 5 deteriorated badly in 2014 and 2015 with Matfield and Jannie du Plessis in the mix. The results of the Springboks in 2014 and 2015 clearly showed that. However what is more pertinent is the issue of line-outs.
In some cases Matfield took as few as three line-outs in tests and even less in Super 15 games. He started well initially - but by the end of 2014 he was down to taking three line-outs per test - especially when up against physically stronger 5's he rarely called line-out to come to him.
Much was made initially about the number of tackles made by him - but in looking at matches those tackles were because he was standing around in the backline and rarely entered mauls to recover balls. He would tackle loosies and backline players - never strong ball carries.
He was atrocious in ball carries and normally made no headway and often enough caused penalties awarded to opposing teams. He was incapable of co-ordinating driving mauls and routinely ended up on the grass beside such mauls - the issue being that he was physically too weak in the present playing environment.
Examples of where he failed are numerous - but the main failures were -
* in the 2014 away test against the AB's where he fumbled a ball in the line-out when the intention was to set up a rolling maul and try and score a try towards the end of the game when the AB's was leading 14-10;
* in the home game against the AB's in 2014 where he lost a line-up throw-in, leading to an AB's try, nearly costing the Springboks victory in that game,
* in the Twickenham test where he was so poor he was eventually yellow-carded nearly causing another loss by the Springboks;
* in the Welsh test where he was extremely poor and only taking three line-outs the whole game and contributing in a major way to a very poor performance by the Springbok forwards;
* in the Japanese test last year where he disobeyed the instructions of Meyer and he was extremely poor in the game;
* in the WC semi-final, where he lost the first line-out on own throw when he came on and where he was responsible for turning around of a penalty that could easily have been converted.
The above were just a few examples of very poor performance that became a norm insofar as Matfield is concerned during 2014 and 2015.
DADevil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DADevil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
07 Mar 2016, 11:59#24
Ok Mike
That is your interpretation of how poor Matfield was then and now. It does not necessarily mean I have to agree with it does it?
Just on the posts posted by mozart alone, it shows you that many different influential people around the world still rate him differently to you, as is their opinion, just like yours.
We all interpret games and players individual performances differently, hell, if we all looked at it the same way, this would be a very boring site to come to, and the human race would end up becoming incredibly stale.
So, I ask again, when you have all these "supposed facts" about his bad "performances" why then even bring in some arbitrary unfounded accusation like a failed ponzi scheme, and his buddy buddy relationship with Meyer into this equation?
Can you conclusively prove this statement of yours, because it is one hell of a statement to make about any individual, player or not?
Statements like that one above , is what shows me your deeper underlying negative feelings you have for Matfield, not how you "perceive" how badly he played, and that's what gives you away.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 12:46#25
DA
One thing you missed is that virtually all the information Mozart provided precedes 2011 when Matfield first retired - there is preciously little of the praising that succeeded that period.
Virtually all subsequent comments from local experts were negative - but derided by Mozart as hatred of Matfield by some ex-Springboks and others.
The Ponzi scheme issue was in the local media and never denied by anybody - it was not a story - it was factual and given as a reason for Matfield's return to play rugby. There were numerous court cases subsequently after a senior staff member of Garfield & Bousfield committed suicide in 2011 and the list of people cheated out of their money was Matfield. The total amount involved were hundreds of millions of Rand and Matfield was one of the big losers.
The statements of the friendship between Meyer and Matfield are factual as well. They were close friends for years since Meyer became the Bulls coach, Meyer never cared about present performance of players and that is a fact as well, His constant refrain was "I know what players are capable of" without taking into account of whether they are still capable of what he saw years ago. Although that accounts for the selection of a number of other players - Meyer used that phrase specifically in the cases of Matfield and Du Preez. That also account for Meyer's constant efforts to get ex-Bulls players like Matfield, Bakkies Botha and Gurthro Steenkamp to come back from international retirement - but top of his list was Matfield and Du Preez - whom he wanted as Springbok captain in 2012 before he eventually turned to De Villiers as captain. At that stage Matfield turned him down and Du Preez was injured and also turned him down.
They later came back and already in 2012 it was clear that Meyer set the key of inclusion of the reputation players as the key for inclusion in the 2015 WC squad and the reason why that squad downgrade from 17 player by the retirement of Bakkies Botha and Gurthro Steenkamp - while Jacque Fourie was in horrible physical condition and he was not capable of reversing that condition before the WC.
The WC squad preparation and selection was the worst ever in the history of the WC and the result was expected.
07 Mar 2016, 13:02#26
Oh brother ... the debate has hardly started and ol Dumb Ass' already on the back foot.
Haaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaa!!
What do you mean "interpretation" of how poor he was??
There is no such horsesh!t.
He either played well or he didn't. He either knocked the ball on or he didn't. Interpret it all you like Dumb Ass ... bottom line is ... did he or did he not knock the ball on??
Did he or did he not perform well in the tight 5?
Was he or wasn't he an asset to the team?
Did a defender half his size run right over the top of him knocking him back 2m or didn't he?
There is no an@lysis needed in ascertaining this. It's just a matter of opening your friggin eyes and having a look.
Perhaps that's you problem, Dumb Ass ... next time watch the match with both eyes wide open ... then come give us your opinion.
You are looking for an excuse ... and let's face it, Dumb Ass ... it's as feeble an excuse as I've come across.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahah!!!
DADevil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DADevil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
07 Mar 2016, 13:09#28
Ok CC
Show me this article then, that Mike mentioned.
Because apparently, that is why he was called back into the side at his "old age", because he lost so much money in a ponzi scheme
Help Mike out here, be a bud, and if you can great, as I would like to read it
Other than that, yes, you interpret a game different to me, Dave, mozart, and others
If you think you don't, then you are the twat.....as always.... not me
I suppose you always rate the cricket and rugby players exactly as everyone else on this forum...... really now, because in essence, that is exactly what you are saying you do, you dumb sh!t
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 13:11#29
DA
He lost the money in a Ponzi scheme and the amount mentioned was R5 million. I cannot recollect the news source - but it happened in late 2011 - early in 2012. There were definitely at the time articles in The Mercury and Daily News on that score.
DADevil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DADevil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
07 Mar 2016, 13:43#30
I find it incredibly hard to believe that a "local" newspaper would carry a story like that, and nothing at all is available today.
Did this same story stipulate or allude to the fact that Meyer took Matfield back into the SA team to help him out personally due to this massive financial loss?
CC, still maintain we don't each interpret sport or individual performances differently?
There are countless posts of yours on here alone which would clearly show just how stupid of a twat you are and how dumb that statement of yours is
Come on chum...... come out of the corner you are backed into right now..........make your play
07 Mar 2016, 14:02#31
@DA. This is par for the course for ou Maaikie. Remember the MS /PSG story?
Matfield was, at the time, also a TV pundit as well as in the coaching set-up at the Bulls. His wife, Dr Monja Bekker, is a successful and accomplished dentist. I cannot see how Matfield could have been in financial dire straits to such an extent that he was involved in a ponzi scheme.
At the time of the MS/PSG debacle, ou Maaikie also "read an article" about PSG's interest in signing MS. He has, to this day, not had the balls to admit that he was BS'ing. He has, to this day, also not been able to provide any shred of proof about the story.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 14:23#32
DA
I referred to the Daily News and the Natal Mercury. They are not National Newspapers by any norm - I should rather have said Provincial or regional newspapers.
However, whether the Ponsi issue was true or not - Matfield himself admitted he lost money in a business deal - but did not mention it was a ponzi scheme he was foolish enough to get caught in. He never denieed the story about involvement in a ponzi scheme and that is a fact as well.
Dofdoos
He was down in his income level and his "dire Strait" resulted from the fact that the gluttonous idiot want to make money fast and lost it instead.
You are an idiot though so why I respond to your idiocy should really not happen.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
07 Mar 2016, 14:36#33
What is it about Dumb Ass that whenever he posts anything on here it's always accompanied by so much sanctimonious sputtering?
Does anyone else suspect that this tedious Kamp SS mole is posting his monotonous and holier-than-thou rubbish on here to intentionally lower the tone of our forum . . . or do you think it's possible someone can be this sickeningly sanctimonious all the time?
07 Mar 2016, 14:49#34
Both the Daily News and the Natal Mercury are IOL newspapers, so they are part of one of the biggest media groups in SA. In fact, they are the part of the second biggest newspaper publisher in SA and are owned by an international Irish based media company, Independent News & Media Plc.
And then just to pour some more salt in your wounds.................... have a look at the "behind the scenes" stuff of said newspaper group.
"In mid-2012, speculation began that INM would sell their South African operation.[15] This was later confirmed. INM had initially hoped for 250 million EUR for INM SA, however bids came in at around 150 million EUR.[16] Cape Town businessman Iqbal Surve's Sekunjalo Investments consortium were the front-runners to purchase INM SA.[17] Inititally Sekunjalo was set to take a 75% stake in the consortium, but this was changed to 55%, with the remainder going to two government entities. The first of these is the investment arm of the SA government [which is, of course, probably our dear friends at Chancellor House], and the second, an investment arm of the Chinese government.[18] Commenting on the deal University of the Witwatersrand journalism professor Anton Harber said that "the ANC is working with their Chinese allies – ruling party to ruling party, in the way the Chinese government so often works – to increase their influence in our local media and counter what they view as a hostile media sector."[19]
Bloomberg reported that Denis O'Brien met Jacob Zuma, president of South Africa, during a private meeting at the Hotel on 24 January 2013. He also met the broker negotiating the sale of INM SA.[20]"
OK. Now before you pop a vein again. The above is just meant to be a bit of banter and is by no means meant to be the start of a whole new lengthy argument.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 15:02#35
The idiot is back and now comes with all kinds of further BS. IOL represent some smaller English newspapers and is small compared to News 24 that has a much wider spread of coverage.
What has your above quote have to do with useless Ouma Victoria?
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 15:58#37
Dofdoos
IOL is not as big as News24 - who is owned by Naspers - which is an International Organisation with assets and investment all over the world. Some of their subsidiaries are Supersport and DSTV - so that tells you what you know about anything dofdoos.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
07 Mar 2016, 16:25#39
Well the rating given to Victor which started this thread was given last Saturday. His MOM in the the RWC consolation final was 4 months ago. He defies his age and in almost every game he plays he is top 3 in tackles. There is zero evidence our scrum is weaker when Victor is on the park. In fact our scrum was weakest last year against the Bargies at home...when Lomp locked with ETzebeth. When Victor joined Etzebeth a few weeks later the scrum was rock solid against the Bargies.....was the switch at lock the whole reason? Obviously not, but it's hard to argue the reverse.
In spite of Mike's attacks and CC the Marnitz Man's boring diatribes, Matfield when healthy was a fine performer last year.
As for the allegation he returned only because he lost some money in a Ponzi scheme, we still have no proof from Mike. And some of the smartest investors I know lost money in the Madoff affair.....losing money in a dishonest investment proves nothing. The only angle that would be interesting is if he only plays cynically, puts in no effort...obviously not the case.
The constant attacks on guys like Matfield on and off the field is very petty and filled with envy and I'm sad to say uniquely South African. Success of others just can't be tolerated.... ugly stuff.
CLclevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CLclevermikeCoach57,555 posts
07 Mar 2016, 16:28#40
Standard BS - sad to say. This is 2016 and he was good in 2009 - since themn a disaster. The constant p[raising of a has-been is uniquely petty and a result of prejudice - ugly stuff.
