Elfster
Alex Ross (28)
A couple of random thoughts on Cranbrook vs Knox
Cranbrook are quite a large side. They looked well drilled and committed. The standout player was their captain and 7 - Kemeny. He was nuisance in the line out and in the loose. He made some crucial tackles, possibly saving some tries.
In the backs the 10 Searle and 12 Stenmark were noticeable. They combined well and were also effective in defence. The 15 is a good runner and almost scored with a scintillating run.
However the Cranbrook attack was missing something. They ran and passed a lot, yet their attack couldn't penetrate. Perhaps some run arounds and running straighter than across the field. Against Knox they could hold possession and territory, but they couldn't convert pressure to points. That said I think this is a side that you would underestimate at your peril.
Knox looked far better than last week against Joey's. They looked less lethargic, had better team work, made less basic errors and played at more pace. However they still left points on the field, which would be a worry to the coaches. The line out at times stuttered and some of the tactical kicking was a bit wayward. At times they tried to run the ball from within their 22, yet in Cranbrook's 22 they occasionally kicked instead of keeping ball in hand. They also tended to give away a few too many penalties.
But there were many positives. Their scrum was good (which begs the question about what happened the week before). The pack worked as a unit and was strong in the loose. The captain Bassoon and 6 Margin were good. At times Bassoon ran like a centre.
The forwards were well complimented by the backs. Number 9 Bosch had one his better games I have seen him. He was far more consistent and mixed up his game to better utilise his all round talents. I would still like him to clear the ball a bit quicker from the rucks and mauls at times. I almost think this year's backline is better than last years in that it is more complete. They are also lucky to have Armstrong at 13. If there is a better 13 in the CAS than him, then CAS will be well served in that position.
What should please the Knox coaching staff would be the way Knox responded to last week's loss. They turned up at their next game and won convincingly. They look a fit side as they wore Cranbrook down and became more dominant as the game went on. There is also some depth, there are some very good players in the seconds to choose from. Though I don't think Cranbrook has depth as Knox beat them quite convincingly in the 2nds.
It was a good start to Knox, but they would be aware that they can and should improve. Also be aware that this competition is quite open; complacency would be a worry.
I also had a look at the 16As and in general agree with earlier posts. Knox won easily yet should have won by more. They let themselves down with some silly errors at times. Either trying too hard or lacking some finishing. but it is early days yet. The Cranbrook prop also stood out and was one of the most impressive players on the field. Which seems rather ironic, but he was a step above his team mates. If he was in the Knox side he may have been a little invisible due to Knox having the better players.
The Knox side has a few excellent players. The 13 looks very impressive: at times I wonder if he was too good, as some of things he tried to do ended up not working, as his team mates lacked the awareness to play off him to better effect. (I hope that makes sense.)
The fact that Cranbrook went for uncontested scrums was a worry. Not a good indication of depth. With full scrums Knox would possibly have won by more.
Cranbrook are quite a large side. They looked well drilled and committed. The standout player was their captain and 7 - Kemeny. He was nuisance in the line out and in the loose. He made some crucial tackles, possibly saving some tries.
In the backs the 10 Searle and 12 Stenmark were noticeable. They combined well and were also effective in defence. The 15 is a good runner and almost scored with a scintillating run.
However the Cranbrook attack was missing something. They ran and passed a lot, yet their attack couldn't penetrate. Perhaps some run arounds and running straighter than across the field. Against Knox they could hold possession and territory, but they couldn't convert pressure to points. That said I think this is a side that you would underestimate at your peril.
Knox looked far better than last week against Joey's. They looked less lethargic, had better team work, made less basic errors and played at more pace. However they still left points on the field, which would be a worry to the coaches. The line out at times stuttered and some of the tactical kicking was a bit wayward. At times they tried to run the ball from within their 22, yet in Cranbrook's 22 they occasionally kicked instead of keeping ball in hand. They also tended to give away a few too many penalties.
But there were many positives. Their scrum was good (which begs the question about what happened the week before). The pack worked as a unit and was strong in the loose. The captain Bassoon and 6 Margin were good. At times Bassoon ran like a centre.
The forwards were well complimented by the backs. Number 9 Bosch had one his better games I have seen him. He was far more consistent and mixed up his game to better utilise his all round talents. I would still like him to clear the ball a bit quicker from the rucks and mauls at times. I almost think this year's backline is better than last years in that it is more complete. They are also lucky to have Armstrong at 13. If there is a better 13 in the CAS than him, then CAS will be well served in that position.
What should please the Knox coaching staff would be the way Knox responded to last week's loss. They turned up at their next game and won convincingly. They look a fit side as they wore Cranbrook down and became more dominant as the game went on. There is also some depth, there are some very good players in the seconds to choose from. Though I don't think Cranbrook has depth as Knox beat them quite convincingly in the 2nds.
It was a good start to Knox, but they would be aware that they can and should improve. Also be aware that this competition is quite open; complacency would be a worry.
I also had a look at the 16As and in general agree with earlier posts. Knox won easily yet should have won by more. They let themselves down with some silly errors at times. Either trying too hard or lacking some finishing. but it is early days yet. The Cranbrook prop also stood out and was one of the most impressive players on the field. Which seems rather ironic, but he was a step above his team mates. If he was in the Knox side he may have been a little invisible due to Knox having the better players.
The Knox side has a few excellent players. The 13 looks very impressive: at times I wonder if he was too good, as some of things he tried to do ended up not working, as his team mates lacked the awareness to play off him to better effect. (I hope that makes sense.)
The fact that Cranbrook went for uncontested scrums was a worry. Not a good indication of depth. With full scrums Knox would possibly have won by more.
