Cheetahs vs Waratahs - 2011R05

[Bullrush]

Everyone knows how sneaky Kiwis are and their propensity to take unfair advantage of any weakness in the opposition. So my supposition is that seeing a relatively inexperienced hooker come on and knowing that the Waratah front rowers would be focussed on readjusting, the Crusaders' pack leader called for a massive effort on that scrum.

Now whether it is in the spirit of the game to pull a stroke like that knowing that your opponents aren't ready for it can be debated, but it was very possibly a game changing call.

Can't see what's so sneaky or unfair if this is what actually happened.

If you put a guy in your team's jersey and sit him on the bench then once he runs on the field he must be ready to play. If he isn't then it's not sneaky or unfair to exploit that. Should the opposition go softly just to compensate for the fact the coaches haven't done their job by ensuring that everyone named in the 22 is ready to play??

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or something but if not then I gotta say that it was a ridiculous comment.

 

[Blue]

Expect these guys to slow the game down. Looks thin. Very thin.

Coenie Oosthuizen, Ryno Barnes, WP Nel
Martin Muller, Wilhelm Steenkamp
Heinrich Brussow, Phillip van der Walt, Ashley Johnson
Tewis de Bruyn, Sias Ebersohn
Fabiaan Juries, Andries Strauss (capt), Robert Ebersohn, Phillip Snyman
Riann Viljoen.

Replacements: Skipper Badenhorst, Lourens Adriaanse, Frans Viljoen, Kabamba Floors, Francois Uys, Sarel Pretorius, Naas Olivier.

 

[Lee Grant]

Bullrush - don't be so precious; only a Kiwi would read that into it. Bruce was being mischievous and was far from being sarcastic.

 

[Hawko]

I think that the assumption that young Fitzpatrick is to blame for the Waratah scrum suddenly performing as if on roller skates is unfair. Having watched the game live I looked at the replay the next morning, paying particular attention to the scrums. What was obvious throughout the game was that the Waratah pack had inadequate leg extension compared to the Crusaders. It can be seen that the joint angles at the hip and knee for the Waratahs were on average perhaps 15˚ more acute than for the Crusaders. What I mean is if a Waratah player had hip and knee joint angles of 90˚ his Crusader counterpart would have angles of say 105˚.

We all know how much easier it is to do a partial squat than a squat to parallel. Biomechanically, our ability to resist and apply force declines significantly as we close the joint angles.

I suspect that, given their more efficient body positioning, the Crusaders were applying superior force right from the first scrum and the Waratahs were exhausting themselves in holding them. The fact that Polota-Nau went into the game with a dodgy shoulder lends weight to this supposition.

Thanks for this Bruce, it is the first reasonable theory I have heard as to why our scrum, previously so dominant, absolutely turned to custard. For me the important question is why? Foley's no idiot, far from it, so he wouldn't have had the leg positioning in place for no reason. I can come up with two possible explanations: firstly the Kiwis have made the gentle pull back causing the scrum to collapse into an art form and maybe the tighter leg angle was to ensure we got more length of push and didn't over-extend and collapse leading to the inevitable Pollock penalty. Alternatively, we had got so over-confident against Aussie scrums and being able to push them back even without optimum leg position that we thought we could do it to the Crusaders too.

One week later the Brumbies scrum was dominant over the Crusaders, a point which seems to have been lost on the commentators amongst the deluge of criticism over the overall performance. One week after an absolutely dominant performance against the Waratahs the Saders pack was marched backwards several times. While Palmer, Moore and possibly Alexander, Chisholm, Hand and Vaea deserve some credit, it was a huge turnaround and I don't for one moment think the introduction of Ben Franks to the run-on team was the reason, though maybe Jack was as useless in the scrum as he was around the park. In a fortnight the Tahs play the Brumbies away and the result of that scrum battle might resolve a few why's.

Interested to hear from better qualified scrum people on what they saw in the two weeks. Like Bruce I am loathe to blame Fitzy for the debacle alone, though he must have made his contribution.

Looks like you overdid the irony bit Bruce, you have to remember that kiwis are part of our forum too.

 

[fatprop]

Lee

It was a response to a comment that he may just leave because he ain't starting ..........................

 

[Bullrush]

Bullrush - don't be so precious; only a Kiwi would read that into it. Bruce was being mischievous and was far from being sarcastic.

That's OK....I wasn't sure and was feeling particularly patriotic......

 

[Hawko]

which NSW forumers was it claiming that Fitzpatrick was the third best hooker in the country prior to the S15(behind Moore and TPN)??

Me and I want to see a whole lot more water under the bridge before I change my opinion. Fainga'a, supposedly the third best hooker in the country, hasn't played against the Crusaders yet and the Reds set piece work against the Brumbies was nothing to write home about.

 

[Bullrush]

Thanks for this Bruce, it is the first reasonable theory I have heard as to why our scrum, previously so dominant, absolutely turned to custard. For me the important question is why? Foley's no idiot, far from it, so he wouldn't have had the leg positioning in place for no reason. I can come up with two possible explanations: firstly the Kiwis have made the gentle pull back causing the scrum to collapse into an art form and maybe the tighter leg angle was to ensure we got more length of push and didn't over-extend and collapse leading to the inevitable Pollock penalty. Alternatively, we had got so over-confident against Aussie scrums and being able to push them back even without optimum leg position that we thought we could do it to the Crusaders too.

One week later the Brumbies scrum was dominant over the Crusaders, a point which seems to have been lost on the commentators amongst the deluge of criticism over the overall performance. One week after an absolutely dominant performance against the Waratahs the Saders pack was marched backwards several times. While Palmer, Moore and possibly Alexander, Chisholm, Hand and Vaea deserve some credit, it was a huge turnaround and I don't for one moment think the introduction of Ben Franks to the run-on team was the reason, though maybe Jack was as useless in the scrum as he was around the park. In a fortnight the Tahs play the Brumbies away and the result of that scrum battle might resolve a few why's.

Interested to hear from better qualified scrum people on what they saw in the two weeks. Like Bruce I am loathe to blame Fitzy for the debacle alone, though he must have made his contribution.

Looks like you overdid the irony bit Bruce, you have to remember that kiwis are part of our forum too.

I too was pretty surprised to see how well the Brubies scrum did against the Saders....the Tahs/Brumbies match-up will be very interesting there...

 

[rugbysmartarse]

i hope dan palmer doesnt tear us apart - but fear he may. We will just have to run rings around him as he stands stoicly adjacent the ruck not committing to much

 

[Bruce Ross]

Can't see what's so sneaky or unfair if this is what actually happened.

If you put a guy in your team's jersey and sit him on the bench then once he runs on the field he must be ready to play. If he isn't then it's not sneaky or unfair to exploit that. Should the opposition go softly just to compensate for the fact the coaches haven't done their job by ensuring that everyone named in the 22 is ready to play??

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or something but if not then I gotta say that it was a ridiculous comment.

Bullrush - don't be so precious; only a Kiwi would read that into it. Bruce was being mischievous and was far from being sarcastic.

That's OK....I wasn't sure and was feeling particularly patriotic......

Sorry, Bullrush, I like to indulge myself. If you substitute "crafty" for "sneaky" then it's basically a serious comment intended as a compliment. Kiwis are always looking for an edge whereas Australians are too often wide-eyed innocents abroad. I like to think it's because New Zealand was very largely settled by Scots who given their miserable climate and resource base plus the perfidy of the English had to be sharp just to survive.

More than once I've thought that Kiwi sides were getting away with murder at the breakdown, then gone and watched the replay and seen how cleverly they push the envelope of the Laws so that the referee seems unsure of whether they are intentionally transgressing or playing legally. I wish our blokes had the same degree of cunning.

I thought the absurdity of the idea that you shouldn't put a big hit on without making sure that the opposition was ready for it would have been a dead giveaway.

 

[Blue]

i hope dan palmer doesnt tear us apart - but fear he may. We will just have to run rings around him as he stands stoicly adjacent the ruck not committing to much

Must be one of the least effective props around the park.

 

[Bullrush]

Sorry, Bullrush, I like to indulge myself. If you substitute "crafty" for "sneaky" then it's basically a serious comment intended as a compliment. Kiwis are always looking for an edge whereas Australians are too often wide-eyed innocents abroad. I like to think it's because New Zealand was very largely settled by Scots who given their miserable climate and resource base plus the perfidy of the English had to be sharp just to survive.

More than once I've thought that Kiwi sides were getting away with murder at the breakdown, then gone and watched the replay and seen how cleverly they push the envelope of the Laws so that the referee seems unsure of whether they are intentionally transgressing or playing legally. I wish our blokes had the same degree of cunning.

I thought the absurdity of the idea that you shouldn't put a big hit on without making sure that the opposition was ready for it would have been a dead giveaway.

LOL.....having read a lot of your posts I wondered if this was the case.....

Having Scottish ancestry (and Samoan blood) myself I'll take the generous words as a personal compliment....especially coming from such a knowledgeable poster like yourself....

 

[Moses]

Must be one of the least effective props around the park.

It'll take some time to forget this potplant effort

[video=youtube;btDuZ94TDqY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btDuZ94TDqY[/video]

 

[Bruce Ross]

Thanks for this Bruce, it is the first reasonable theory I have heard as to why our scrum, previously so dominant, absolutely turned to custard. For me the important question is why? Foley's no idiot, far from it, so he wouldn't have had the leg positioning in place for no reason. I can come up with two possible explanations: firstly the Kiwis have made the gentle pull back causing the scrum to collapse into an art form and maybe the tighter leg angle was to ensure we got more length of push and didn't over-extend and collapse leading to the inevitable Pollock penalty. Alternatively, we had got so over-confident against Aussie scrums and being able to push them back even without optimum leg position that we thought we could do it to the Crusaders too.

I think either of your two explanations are plausible, Hawko, or perhaps an amalgam of the two.

I continue to be surprised how little attention is given to joint angles in scrummaging, particularly with respect to second and backrowers. The foundation of the very powerful Argentinian bajadita scrum was foot positioning and synchronicity of joint angles throughout the scrum.

It is, of course, quite difficult to observe body positioning in the scrum when watching televised games as producers prefer to show crowd shots until just before the ball is fed into the scrum. In addition there are few stable, well structured pushing scrums since the emergence of the hit engagement, as Lee Grant keeps reminding us.

 

[Lee Grant]

Lee

It was a response to a comment that he may just leave because he ain't starting ..........................

Fair enough.

That's OK....I wasn't sure and was feeling particularly patriotic......

Fair enough.

I like to think it's because New Zealand was very largely settled by Scots who given their miserable climate and resource base plus the perfidy of the English had to be sharp just to survive.

Er - not in Deans country Bruce, that was the perfidious Poms - the Sots were more down Dunedin/Invercargill way. Older folks down there still have the burr in their voice. Even when someone as young as Jamie McIntosh is interviewed you can still ear a bit of that if you listen closely enough. But you are right about the wide eyed innocence of our players. I saw it yesterday when our U/20 payers were smacked.

Agree on the second paragraph too. I wish we had more barbarians at the gates.

PS I have just noticed my mis-typing of Scots, but no doubt my error is not far from the truth.

 

[Moses]

Er - not in Deans country Bruce, that was the perfidious Poms - the Sots were more down Dunedin/Invercargill way. Older folks down there still have the burr in their voice. Even when someone as young as Jamie McIntosh is interviewed you can still ear a bit of that if you listen closely enough. But you are right about the wide eyed innocence of our players. I saw it yesterday when our U/20 payers were smacked.

I found it amusing that the Poms settled Christchurch and the Scots Dunedin. Seems they sought out a climate similar to the one they left, and upon reaching Christchurch the Scots declared not miserable enough, and kept heading south.

 

[Bruce Ross]

I found it amusing that the Poms settled Christchurch and the Scots Dunedin. Seems they sought out a climate similar to the one they left, and upon reaching Christchurch the Scots declared not miserable enough, and kept heading south.

A great line, Moses, with probably more than an element of truth.

 

[The Mayor of Perth]

I found it amusing that the Poms settled Christchurch and the Scots Dunedin. Seems they sought out a climate similar to the one they left, and upon reaching Christchurch the Scots declared not miserable enough, and kept heading south.

very good

With the Brums in a bigger hole than the Kalgoorlie super pit and the Force unable to nail a win, (gulp, I never thought I'd say this...) looking forward to seeing the Tahs live on Sat night. Any recommendations on pre-match watering holes please??

 

[The Mayor of Perth]

I think either of your two explanations are plausible, Hawko, or perhaps an amalgam of the two.

I continue to be surprised how little attention is given to joint angles in scrummaging, particularly with respect to second and backrowers. The foundation of the very powerful Argentinian bajadita scrum was foot positioning and synchronicity of joint angles throughout the scrum.

It is, of course, quite difficult to observe body positioning in the scrum when watching televised games as producers prefer to show crowd shots until just before the ball is fed into the scrum. In addition there are few stable, well structured pushing scrums since the emergence of the hit engagement, as Lee Grant keeps reminding us.

I'll ask the physicist I'm seeing at the NMI about this.

 

[Lindommer]

At the moment he is the 8th best hooker in Australia in my eyes, behind (in no order) Fainga'a, Hanson, TPN, Moore, Edmonds, Robinson and Whittaker.

He's also the youngest of that group of rakes, give him time. If he can't improve under Foley's tutelage he hasn't got it.