I watch the two games this morning with keen interest and saw the reason for the losses by the Bulls and the win for the Sharks.
Bulls
Despite a massive effort by some players the Bulls lost the game. The question is why did it happen? I would say there are two reasons for the loss:-
* problematic ball handling; and
* malfunctioning of the Bulls Tight 5 and no 8
Problematic Ball Handling
There were too many handling errors by the Bulls - too many balls went astray. The single most problematic problem was Victor Matfield - who managed to lose ball possession four times - I thought it was more, but the Stats say 4 times. He also gave away a penalty.
The second problem case was Pierre Spies - who seems to have handles of clay and whose discipline was in this game worse than that of Flippie - the Card-master.
The poor play by Matfield let to 2 tries scored by the Chiefs and he actually donated more than enough points to the Chiefs to receive a thank you card from them.
Malfunctioning of the Tight 5
This problem could be clearly seen in scrums and maul situations. While in the game between the Stormers and the Chiefs - the Stormers pushed the Chiefs scrum back with great ease - the scrumming of the Bulls were static or even going slightly backwards.
However, it was in the mauls where things went wrong badly and a number of possession-turnovers occurred. The main problem here was again Matfield - who constantly moonlighted in the backline and rarely did anything in maul situations. In the odd occasions that he tried - he was cleared out with ease. The other person who cased problems were Pierre Spies - also nowhere to be seen in maul situations and joining his friend Matfield in the backline.
All in all the mauling of the Bulls was below par - and that also contributed to the poor overall performances of the Bulls forwards, but in particular to the non-existent role of Matfield in the process.
The Sharks
The Sharks can in fact thank two players for their victory today and those are Bismarck du Plessis and Marcel Coetzee. Ball possession turnovers and ball carries coupled to a large number of very effective tackles made the task of the Sharks much easier thatn it would have been without those two players.
The Sharks had a sixteenth player to help them along. His name - James O'Connor - was given on the team-sheets as a player for the Reds, but he was of great help to the Sharks today. That relieving kick of his resulting in Ungerer's second try was near to unique. The only time I previously saw that type of mishap was by Francois Steyn in tests in 2012, where it happened in two tests. The third one was by Morne in the Super 15 play-off against the Brumbies.
CONCLUSION
Mozart and the Village Idiot Letsal will harp on about the tackles made by Matfield - but those weak tackles occurred because of Matfield constantly moonlighting in the backline and not contributing anything up front. However, his 4 ball possession losses were severely punished by the Chiefs and after todays match it is clear that Matfield should not be anywhere near the Bulls team and obviously never been near the Springbok team as well. A physical-deficient lock has no place in rugby.
