Your vote Matfield or Lood

starting for the rest of the WC
My vote obviously goes to Lood

 Lood no doubt - Matfield weakens our Tight 5 to a Tight 4.  

Comparing Victor and Lood is like comparing an athlete with a felled tree. If only that were a joke. It is not. 

 Dimness Fox is a joke.  Matfield will cost us the game.  

2-1 so far  

 LOOD.

 Cost us what game? As for him weakening the team, how so? Tell me all the juicy details Michael.

 3-1

Matfield to start with Lood replacing Matfield. 

 3-2 wow Shark, I did not expect you to be so fucking stupid, but hey ho

I see Lood is well represented in the poll. So, to even things up a bit and to add spice to the excitement, I will vote for Victor Lood Lood. Is the ballot paper still valid if there are a couple of markings on it? 

Good one Blikkies
4-2

 Lood by a country mile.

 5-2

 How strange to even be putting such a question to the vote!

Well Beenkop two clowns have voted for Matfield...I just wanted to expose the ignorant clowns on here.
I expected a Matfield vote from DumFox. ..but old Sharktwat just confirmed yet again how rugby poor he is.

 Yep very poor judgement by sharktwit. 
I suspect some here are having visual problems that have crept up on them. 

 Cards assessemnt that Lood is slow is hilarious!

Matfield. We don't want to lose any more lineouts on our opponents 5 metre line...but failing Matfield at least call Etzebeth, he doesn't get trumped by the Richie Greys on the rugby world. 

5-3 and I suspect that's the end for useless Vic.
Surely there cannot be any others stupid enough to vote for Vic.
It's like choosing dark choc over milk choc

 Lood to start, Victor on the bench

 The Ponzi fool is coasting us dearly in tests - that is very, very embarrassing.  Mozart should advise us if anybody involving himself in that kind of BS has a brain.  

 And where exactly has Victor cost us? So far Lood has done the most damage conceding points and fumbling balls, losing that lineout was a slap in your face too. 

 Losing tests because he reduced the Tight 5 to a Tight 4.  Just watch the results of tests since the RC last year.  Embarrassing.   Lets look at the AB test away, The Aussie test away, the Irish test, the Wales test, the Japanese test - get the message.  he tried desperately - but Lambie saved us from another loss at Ellis Park.  You are a joke you know.       

LIVELY LOOD!!  

 Matfield died in 2007 RIP . LOOD

 That's not an answer Mika, that's verbal fumbling in the dark. Tell me exactly what he has done to cost the team.

 Just try fumbling line-outs against the AB's last year and the Japanese test where he disobeyed Meyer in not wanting to use rolling mauls because he is so weak in that component of the game.   

No, tell me what he has physically done to cost us tests. You can ever cite references, just vague statements backed up by personal attacks. 

Explain the Ponzi reference Pervert.  

 The Matfield issue has been discussed on this board repetitively for a year and you have not learnt anything yet.  I can go through games where we lost games endlessly or contributed to us being saved in games by other players at the last minute.
Take the second Wales test last year.  Ball carries in traffic - lost critical ball possession once and gave away a penalty - try scored as a result of possession turnover converted by Biggar.  We won by 1 point - but Matfield cost us dearly and nearly the match.
Perth test last year - missed oodles of tackles, lost ball possession once, gave away converted penalty.  Although Morne was the real reason for losing that match - Matfield made a determined effort to lose the game as well.
Wellington test last year - penalty taken and kicked to corner five meters out to start rolling maul.  Matfield fumbled the ball on own throw-in and opportunity lost and so was the game by 14-10.   
Ellis Park Test - lost ball on own throw-in five meters out and the AB's scored a try.  Match only saved because Lambie kicked a long distance penalty in the last minute of the game.  
Ireland test - Matfield disappeared in Tight 5 play and the Irish  got the better of us up front.  Hougaard was a real problem - but his service from the Tight 4 phase of play was pathetic.
English test - was an embarrassment in Tight 5 play - was yellow-carded as a result.  We won the test despite Matfield's efforts to the contrary.  
In the Japanese test Matfield governed the forward play and Du Plessis told him he was piss poor in his decision-making.  De Villiers was not deciding on whether to use rolling mauls or not - it was Matfield's decision.   
Welsh Test - Matfield was an embarrassment in that test.  Lost ball possession twice - gave away one concerted penalty - cannot carry balls in traffic =- perfect example of that.  Poor forward play and a non-functional Tight 4.     

Not a sickness - just stating facts,         

I don't read your views Perv, but your Ponzi reference is interesting. Explain how Matfield is a "Ponzi fool"  

 

It becomes a bore when you revert to old exposed lies. 

 Mozart
When Meyer initially approached Matfield in 2012 to return to playing rugby and promised him the Springbok captaincy Matfield turned him down flat.   A senior representative of the legal firm Garlicke and Bousfield at the time ran a major Ponzi scheme and the culprit committed suicide afterwards losing people hundreds of millions.  Ever since it has been alleged that Matfield was one of the major financial losers of money in that case.
It is alleged that the reason for him returning to play rugby again was to try and recover some of his major losses in money and hence his future financial security.  The only secure way of getting enough income for the purpose - his coaching job at the Bulls was not a certainty as it was linked to Ludeke and signs were bad for the Bulls and for Matfield coaching career - and a parttime job at Supersport was not sufficient for the said purpose.  It led to his choice to return to play rugby - the only occupation he really knew.  Meyer was glad to help out an old pal of his.  That is allegedly also the reason for the contract with Northampton as his coaching job at the Bulls was also in jeopardy after Ludeke was forced to resign - he never really was a good enough attacking coach in any event.  
I would not swear it was the case - but it is the talk of the town and signs are that it may be the case.   

                     

 Dim Fox
The fact that you state that all the incidents and issues involved has been debunked by you and Mozart are as ridiculous as the pair of you are,  Invented excuses by you two fools does not mean debunking at all.   Get the message?  .  

So Matfield may, and the word may should be stressed,  be playing because he needs the money....an argument you can make for almost every Bok great who leaves RSA at the end of their career. The only difference is Matfield has been the victim of a fraud. Something I think we might have a bit of sympathy for, rather than calling him a "Ponzi fool".
Pervert in every way your lack of class shines through.

 Matfield to  play tha last 20 min.

 I have sympathy for people - but not when they are too dim to realize that money should be earned and not squandered by investing it in dubious financial ventures trying to make fairy tales profits.   Matfield was allegedly defrauded - but his actions were that of a fool.
      .    

 
Baby faced Lood ... of course.

Victor not on the bench ... in fact not anywhere near the team ... but rather to join Fat Fransie on Robin Island.