Qualifying Final Brumbies v Hurricanes (3rd v 4th) Sat 7th June @ GIO Stadium 7.35pm AEST

[molman]

It will definitely be something they adjust week to week. Last night they obviously made a decision to take time and space away from the big centres that killed us in the round game (along with Naholo who was injured last night). I think they had less influence last night. As you say McKenzie will have an eye on the space behind the line, particularly given Lonergan is often employed as a shooter. The Chiefs pack will also pose a bigger threat next week, but on current form our guys shouldnt be overawed by them.

No they shouldn't, but travel and recovery will be a factor. Two pretty physical games for both the Brum/Canes & Chief/Blues. Hopefully Noah is all good, otherwise happy to see them come out of the one sans any new injuries. Agree the Canes missed Nahalo, but also Aumua I felt.

Anyway looking forward to next week.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Yes, agree that would definitely help stop box kicking. The benefits of rucking v present rules?

Again, possibly an easy fix. Just penalise the first player to a ruck who goes off his feet. Happens at every ruck just about. That would ensure the jackel has to be the first one there to have a go at the ball, and that otherwise the ball is available for the contest.

 

[Brumby Runner]

In theory, the second chance is available to the top three teams, but in effect can only be exercised by one team in the whole finals series, that being whichever is the highest losing team. For example, this year the Chiefs get to exercise the second chance, but if either of the Crusaders or Brumbies had faltered they would have been eliminated. I think the second chance is an over-rated concept.

An alternative system could have been :

Chiefs finished No 1 but beaten in the qualifying final. Hence, they drop to No 4 rating while the Crusaders and Brumbies move up a point to 1 and 2. The Blues fill the No 3 spot. Crusaders No 1 play the Chiefs No 4, and the Brumbies No 2 play the Blues No 3. No repitition of the match-ups in the qualifying round. Similarly, Had Chiefs won but Crusaders had been beaten, then Chiefs No 1 would play Crusaders No 4 while Brumbies (or Hurricanes had they won) No 2 would play the Reds No 3. No situation where the qualifying contests would be replicated in the semi-finals.


EDIT : saying the same thing as Lindommer above. Couldn't agree more L.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Not with Brum Runner & Tomikin about...

That's moot WOB.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Those solutions to reduce the box kick.....what's the actual issue? Teams kicking too much, or that teams use a box kick now instead of the 5/8 spiral?

 

[whitefalcon]

Box kicks aren’t ThE aUsTrAlIaN bRaNd Of RuGbY

 

[Tomikin]

What would you propose though? Even if you bring in things like PD you'd still have a home semi-final for the Chiefs & Crusaders. I agree with @PhilClinton, there needs to be some reward for being Minor Premiers.

There reward was a home quarter and the ability to lose and still not be eliminated...The only team truely safe.

But you can't reward losing. It makes no sense and this has never been the structure in any competition Ive played in or been involved in across many many sports.

If it's been six team finals top two either had a week off or highest placed loser gets through dropping to the bottom of the pack..

Begs believe.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Those solutions to reduce the box kick.....what's the actual issue? Teams kicking too much, or that teams use a box kick now instead of the 5/8 spiral?

My issue is that it's a form of obstruction esp when the 9 motions for yet another set of legs to be added to the caterpillar.

 

[Dan54]

So do you reward winning? If Chiefs got dropped to bottom of pack, that would mean Crusaders who are now rated No1 would have to play them next week, so top 2 qualifiers in SF, seems harsh on Crusaders. I bet I know who Crusaders would rather face.
Knock out finals are a lottery as it is, and not really best way to decide a champion, but it's what is needed for tv etc (same as 6 team finals)

 

[Tomikin]

Yep I reward the Crusaders with the top spot, the Brumbies with the second and the Blues with 3rd.

It's not really up to the Crusaders want to play. They now are the top ranked seed get home advantage all the way through.

Trust a Kiwi to think this is logical.

 

[Dan54]

Ok, I not saying it logical, I not sure how knock out finals with 6 teams are ever logical anyway.

 

[Adam84]

It was nice to see an actual gameplan, targeting certain opponent weaknesses rather than just naively spinning the ball out wide aimlessly all game like old Teflon Les and his boys dished up last night

Or like the Tahs dished up all season….

 

[Adam84]

There reward was a home quarter and the ability to lose and still not be eliminated...The only team truely safe.

But you can't reward losing. It makes no sense and this has never been the structure in any competition Ive played in or been involved in across many many sports.

If it's been six team finals top two either had a week off or highest placed loser gets through dropping to the bottom of the pack..

Begs believe.

Yeah there reward was a home QF and a second shot if they lost… why the fuck they were given another home SF after losing is beyond me, such a stupid concept

 

[Tomthumb]

Or like the Tahs dished up all season….

Agreed. I'm not a Tah's fan so not sure why you'd think I'd disagree with this. I'm sure old supercoach Teflon Les would have the Tahs winning it all

 

[Tomthumb]

Ok, I not saying it logical, I not sure how knock out finals with 6 teams are ever logical anyway.

The NFL only did it for about 25 years. The 1st and 2nd seeds earn a bye and the remaining 4 play each other

This nonsense about "lucky losers" and games being dead rubbers in the playoffs is peak Super rugby galaxy brain silliness

 

[Adam84]

Agreed. I'm not a Tah's fan so not sure why you'd think I'd disagree with this. I'm sure old supercoach Teflon Les would have the Tahs winning it all

Not sure the name-calling really adds to the objectivity of your argument, it's fair to say with your comments alone the claim he doesn't receive critcism is false, or escalated to the point of name-calling to get a point across.

 

[Tomthumb]

Not sure the name-calling really adds to the objectivity of your argument, it's fair to say with your comments alone the claim he doesn't receive critcism is false, or escalated to the point of name-calling to get a point across.

Name calling? Haha c'mon now. Outside of myself he seems to have only been praised and been promoted to the top job in the country despite back to back bad QF losses to go along with very little success in Europe. He is teflon as none of these losses seem to stick to him like they have for other coaches

As a Wallabies fan it's concerning as he only seems to have one way of playing Rugby. The lack of nuance and pragmatism scares me and I don't think we should just ignore how meekly both his Reds seasons have ended

 

[Adam84]

Name calling? Haha c'mon now. Outside of myself he seems to have only been praised and been promoted to the top job in the country despite back to back bad QF losses to go along with very little success in Europe. He is teflon as none of these losses seem to stick to him like they have for other coaches

As a Wallabies fan it's concerning as he only seems to have one way of playing Rugby. The lack of nuance and pragmatism scares me and I don't think we should just ignore how meekly both his Reds seasons have ended

Tom, like most Reds fans—including myself—I’ve said multiple times that I didn’t think Kiss should be promoted to the Wallabies job. I’ve also made it clear that none of the Super Rugby coaching options presented felt like the perfect fit for what the Wallabies needed. So no need to declare as a self-proclaimed pariah here. Plenty of us have raised fair concerns without resorting to smug nicknames. Pressing the same take with a sarcastic label across multiple matchday threads doesn’t make it any more insightful—it just makes the discussion more tedious.

 

[JRugby2]

woah nuance in a anon rugby thread? what's next - flying cars?

 

[Tomthumb]

Tom, like most Reds fans—including myself—I’ve said multiple times that I didn’t think Kiss should be promoted to the Wallabies job. I’ve also made it clear that none of the Super Rugby coaching options presented felt like the perfect fit for what the Wallabies needed. So no need to declare as a self-proclaimed pariah here. Plenty of us have raised fair concerns without resorting to smug nicknames. Pressing the same take with a sarcastic label across multiple matchday threads doesn’t make it any more insightful—it just makes the discussion more tedious.

My comment on this thread was more praising Larkham's coaching job in the way he had a gameplan around targeting things about the opposition to exploit, which was in stark contrast to the Reds performance on Friday