• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Plumtree has a whinge

Status
Not open for further replies.

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
Ag nee Boetie, we just have to agree to disagree. No team in SA against SA teams are meat for another at home. Thats the differense CC do to us, even to beat Griquas at the Groot Gat is not easy. They kicked the Brutes out of their semi spot last year, Sharks also got one huge hiding there in 2010.
...
and you sure as hell can see what differense there was between the two conferenses. One hell of a gap between 82 and -60 = 142 and -52 and 26 = 76.

b4ox3.gif
Nonsense, the derbies are played home and away. The number of WINS are paramount.

Combining the conference derby tables, the Stormers come out on top and they eat all the dried biltong meat on the bottom. The Rebels had two blowouts but they actually won two games. Lions and Cheetahs did not.

Code:
         W    D    L    F-A
Stormers 7    0    1    +70
Waratahs 7    0    1    +43
Reds     6    0    2    +47
Bulls    6    0    2    +23
Sharks   4    1    3     +8
Force    2    1    5    -27
Brumbies 2    1    5    -33
Rebels   2    0    6   -143
Lions    1    1    6    -81
Cheetahs 1    0    7    -20
 

Bardon

Peter Fenwicke (45)
If you look at the very start of the clip Transvaal score a try and then they mention Botes taking the conversion and missing.
 
S

spooony

Guest
If you look at the very start of the clip Transvaal score a try and then they mention Botes taking the conversion and missing.
haha lol That is Mr. Naas Botha sir
That guy won Currie Cups on his own. His back line were only there to tackle nothing else cause they did not see much ball. He dropped a 18 point deficit into a 6 point lead in under 30 minutes
 

Brisbok

Cyril Towers (30)
Interesting comments by Tony 'TJ' Johnson in his latest column.
Interesting Start to Super Rugby
The Stormers may have their noses in front on points differential but the Bulls and Crusaders were the standout teams for me in week one of Super Rugby.
The Stormers effort is hard to quantify. They won by the biggest margin in an otherwise tight weekend, but they were also helped greatly by the indiscipline of the Hurricanes, and even then battled to put away a side shorn of most of its star power and rated by pundits here as the most likely to finish bottom of the New Zealand conference.
I note that a fair bit has already been said about Marius Jonker's performance. I’m reluctant to start talking about refs, because I’m sure that will invite a torrent of Bryce Lawrence related comments, but I’ll just offer this up. Yes, the Hurricanes copped a few rough ones, and didn’t get the benefit of the doubt over a TMO call that could have gone either way (which is fair enough…I always believe that doubt should favour the defending team, as it did when Joe Pieterson went close late in the game), but really they were their own worst enemies, and gave away too many unnecessary penalties.
They’ll need to improve their discipline or else they’ll get booted off the park by Elton Jantjies this weekend, the way he was kicking at Coca-Cola Park.
The Crusaders are missing Dan Carter and Richie McCaw, but got off to a very good start with a nailbiting win over the Blues, and they are going to be tough to beat. The Blues had plenty of ball, and broke plenty of tackles, but the thing that got the Crusaders through was their coolness under pressure, and their ability to make good decisions in the heat of battle.
The Bulls are another side to have lost an array of stars….in fact they’ve lost the backbone of the team that shaped their dynasty, but I was impressed by the way they went about seeing off the Sharks.
It wasn’t pretty….Francois Hougaard made a couple of good breaks, but for the most part it was classic Bulls…..an accurate kicking game and a determined chase to put pressure on and create mistakes and scoring opportunities. It’s a formula that works for them, and they would be mad to stray from it.
I was mightily impressed by Juandre Kruger. I was staggered to read in the media guide he is “only” 1 metre 98…..not because of the way he towered over Xola Ntshinga in the post-match interview (sorry Xola buddy, not implying you are a midget or anything), but because he was such a colossal figure in the game. I would have thought he was 2 metres 20 the way he dominated the airwaves. What do you feed these guys?
I wasn’t quite so impressed by Jon Plumtree's comments afterwards. Not the bit about there being too many derby matches, I understand how South Africans feel about that, but Plumtree's claim that the derbies in the other conferences are not nearly as intense as the South African ones…...well it might be true of Australia, in fact I have no doubt it is true, but take a look at the Blues/Crusaders and Chiefs/Highlanders games Jon. Sounds like a disappointed coach talking to me.
I stand by what I’ve already said. The New Zealand and South African conferences are on a par, but the makeup of the Aussie one makes it virtually impossible for them not to get two teams into the playoffs, and greatly helps the chances of an Australian team topping the log at the end of the round robin.
A real positive about the opening weekend was the array of bright young number 10s on display, including the Hurricane's Beauden Barrett, the two young flyhalves in the Joburg match, and Dan Carter's new understudy Tyler Bleyendaal in the Crusaders.
It was also good to see the likes of Pieterson and Tamati Ellison back where they belong in Super Rugby.
Finally any doubts over this being a battle of attrition would have been erased long before the weekend was over.
To have guys like Schalk Burger, Lelia Masaga and Brendan Leonard all facing long layoffs underlines just how important squad depth is going to be, and the pressure will be on the coaches to manage their players carefully.
http://www.supersport.com/rugby/blogs/tony-johnson/Interesting_start_to_Super_Rugby
 
S

spooony

Guest
Off course he needs to talk good about his employers. They pay his salary and Supersport are in bed with the Bulls rugby union. He is like Naas commenting on attacking rugby and running angles which is a joke. He goes on cause The Hurricanes was ill discipline and that is why the stormers won yet The Bulls won thanks to 5 penalty goals from Steyn thx to the ill discipline of the Sharks. I mean hey the Stormers scored 2 tries from open play. I think Mr Johnson must stop sniffing whatever he is sniffing.

Both teams have tackle ratios of 85 percent yet one try is scored only. Stormers Hurricanes both avg 90 percent and 5 was scored between them.
 

Brisbok

Cyril Towers (30)
Off course he needs to talk good about his employers. They pay his salary and Supersport are in bed with the Bulls rugby union. He is like Naas commenting on attacking rugby and running angles which is a joke. He goes on cause The Hurricanes was ill discipline and that is why the stormers won yet The Bulls won thanks to 5 penalty goals from Steyn thx to the ill discipline of the Sharks. I mean hey the Stormers scored 2 tries from open play. I think Mr Johnson must stop sniffing whatever he is sniffing.

Both teams have tackle ratios of 85 percent yet one try is scored only. Stormers Hurricanes both avg 90 percent and 5 was scored between them.

Wow, Tony Johnson in bed with Supersport and the Bulls and that's why he writes columns praising the bulls but criticising the Stormers. Now I've heard all the conspiracy theories. You continue to lose more and more credibility with each new post that you make.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Spoony to suggest that a Kiwi guest journo talks up the Bulls because of some indirect involvement in the Franchise of the broadcaster that pays him is preposterous. Read again. he questions the significance of beating a hurricanes team that is at ground zero, at home against the Stormers, with a brand new team. Add to that a ref that blew them off the park.

They did pretty well and were the Stormers that hot? I think not.

The Bulls did not allow the Sharks any room and frustrated them. Same old recipe in Pretoria for over a century. Executed well.

I agree with what he says. Let's talk again if the Stormers deal with the Sharks as comfortably.
 
S

spooony

Guest
Wow, Tony Johnson in bed with Supersport and the Bulls and that's why he writes columns praising the bulls but criticising the Stormers. Now I've heard all the conspiracy theories. You continue to lose more and more credibility with each new post that you make.
Eek thought it was Tony Watson not Johnson my appoligies but anyways read this and be shocked
http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/1831/03chapter2.pdf

1 Company have a 50 percent stake in the Bulls and all the other franchises but they have a 20 percent stake in. They get all the mergandise profits that gets made out of the tournament. The only three unions in this country not owned by anyone is The Lions, Boland and SWD. The rest are Supersports and SAILS play toys.

But Plumtree was not the first to say it. Jake White said it first

Local derbies being overkilled

By Jake White

If you sit back and examine the format of the new Super 15, one of the things that stands out for me is that the series is not ideally suited to South African rugby.

That may sound a bit harsh, but you have to consider where the roots of competition in this country come from.

We might have gained re-entry to international competition and won the World Cup twice as well as got deeply involved in the Tri-Nations and Super rugby, but in terms of competition that keeps the local fans coming back for more, you can trace it all back to the years of isolation.

Back then, the Currie Cup was the pinnacle of what we were about – certainly for this generation – and remains an important part of what makes the game tick in this country.

Yes, they have a tough provincial competition in New Zealand and Australia also have theirs, but, for me, nothing compares with the intensity and feeling of the Currie Cup.

A big part of this is the needle that has always existed in the big derby games, the head-to-head meetings between traditional rivals has got the players coming out and playing on a different level and stirred the fans.

When you take that out of the equation, something very special goes missing from the overall make-up of the game in South Africa.

And, if you think about it – especially with the Tri-Series between the Stormers, Lions and Sharks at Newlands later this month – it is not beyond the bounds of probability that the Sharks and Stormers could meet eight times this season with the build-up matches in Cape Town, the home and away of the opening phases of Super 15 and the Currie Cup if both sides go all the way.

Quite simply, that's far too many derbies. It blunts the needle if you like, taking the intensity out of it for both the players and the supporters.

It presents something of a problem for the provincial coaches and the Springbok coaching staff. With that much competition, the guys with a chance of making it to the World Cup will be playing out of their skins to prove a point. It's impossible to stop.

Just think about the loose forwards as an example. There's Heinrich Brussouw versus Schalk Burger for a start and then players like Pierre Spies, Duane Vermeulen, Ryan Kankowski, Willem Alberts and Keegan Daniel all giving it everything.

None of them are going to give anything but all they've got. From personal experience, there were times when several players were fighting for one or two spots, you had to hold them back in Springbok training sessions.

The very competitive nature of South African rugby sides – and the first part of Super 15 – could just raise the tempo of how hard our sides go at one another and how often a side to all intents and purposes out of contention, pulls off a win that really hurts a side who are still in the mix.

But there are some positives about warm-up matches something like the Tri-Series presents. It offers a coach the chance to try out new combinations and, if he is allowed to rotate players, experiment with certain things, without giving too much away ... or it costing his side.

What must be guarded against though is a coach playing a total B side combination. You can argue as much as you like about looking at the depth available, but it is often the case that the coach will never play that combination in a match situation.

But what a coach really doesn't want, no matter who he turns out on the day, is a side which leaks points and gives away soft tries.
11
Nor does he want a side that defends negatively and keeps up being blown up by the referee. This is also a warm-up for the refs and a bad impression at the start that is likely to have the referees talking among one another and stretch across the competition.

No, I'm not in favour of too many derbies, because you have to remember that the coaches want to win just as much as the players do and all it does is introduce extra pressures.

But then pressure is very much a part of top rugby, so I'm going to pour myself a long whisky and soda highball and drink to the success of South African Super 15 sides.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
b4ox3.gif
Nonsense, the derbies are played home and away. The number of WINS are paramount.

Combining the conference derby tables, the Stormers come out on top and they eat all the dried biltong meat on the bottom. The Rebels had two blowouts but they actually won two games. Lions and Cheetahs did not.

Code:
        W    D    L    F-A
Stormers 7    0    1    +70
Waratahs 7    0    1    +43
Reds    6    0    2    +47
Bulls    6    0    2    +23
Sharks  4    1    3    +8
Force    2    1    5    -27
Brumbies 2    1    5    -33
Rebels  2    0    6  -143
Lions    1    1    6    -81
Cheetahs 1    0    7    -20
You only want to see what you want. Our derbies is much closer and tougher to get that away win.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Where's the proof of that Paarl? In 2011

The Force lost to the Rebels and tied with the Brumbies at home.
The Reds lost the Brumbies and were pushed all the way by the Tahs and Force at home.
The Brumbies lost to the Force at home.
The Rebels beat the Brumbies and Rebels at home.
The Tahs didn't lose a home game but just lost one to the Reds in 2012.

I believe our conference had more away wins than yours did. Although I'm sure you're going to rubbish the quality of the Rebels/Brumbies/Force from this so I've already prepared for this

The Cheetahs did not beat the Sharks, Bulls or Stormers once.
The Lions did not beat the Sharks, Bulls or Stormers once.

I'm so sick of you Saffers trying to argue how your conference is closer and tougher than ours when it's a total myth. That said your conference is probably harder due to the travel factor but there's nothing that can be done about that, the current format actually reduces that impact. I'm really not gunna bother with this subject any more because it's pretty clear it's not true but you just won't have it.
I gave you the stats on the previous page. My Kiap Boet dont want to read them.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I deleted that post as it was too incoherent

Well let's look at the bottom 2 teams in each conference

The Cheetahs had 0 victories against the top 3 sides in your conference
The Lions had 0 victories against the top 3 sides in your conference

The Brumbies beat the Reds (1)
The Rebels beat the Force (3)

Both victories were away.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
I deleted that post as it was too incoherent

Well let's look at the bottom 2 teams in each conference

The Cheetahs had 0 victories against the top 3 sides in your conference
The Lions had 0 victories against the top 3 sides in your conference

The Brumbies beat the Reds (1)
The Rebels beat the Force (3)

Both victories were away.
I try to illustarte the closeness of our matches. If you want to compare wins only well the Cheetahs beat your second best team at home.
 

kiap

Steve Williams (59)
You only want to see what you want. Our derbies is much closer and tougher to get that away win.
I'm seeing facts man. It is so easy for Stormers, Sharks, Bulls to win away against Cheetahs and Lions.

They won 80% away over the last 5 years against the Cheetahs.
Code:
18 Jun 2011 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Stormers 34-44 L
 4 Jun 2011 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Sharks   18-23 L
25 Feb 2011 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Bulls    23-25 L
12 Feb 2010 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Bulls    34-51 L
16 May 2009 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Stormers 22-28 L
11 Apr 2009 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Sharks   31-6  W
17 May 2008 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Bulls    20-60 L
10 Mar 2007 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Sharks   14-30 L
 3 Feb 2007 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Stormers 27-9  W
10 Feb 2006 Bloemfontein, Cheetahs v Bulls    18-30 L

They won 91% away over the last 5 years against the Lions.

Code:
11 Jun 2011 Johannesburg, Lions v Sharks   30-30 D
16 Apr 2011 Johannesburg, Lions v Stormers 19-33 L
19 Feb 2011 Johannesburg, Lions v Bulls    20-24 L
17 Apr 2010 Johannesburg, Lions v Sharks   28-32 L
13 Feb 2010 Johannesburg, Lions v Stormers 13-26 L
28 Feb 2009 Johannesburg, Lions v Bulls     9-16 L
17 May 2008 Johannesburg, Lions v Stormers 13-22 L
15 Mar 2008 Johannesburg, Lions v Sharks    8-16 L
21 Apr 2007 Johannesburg, Lions v Bulls     7-31 L
15 Apr 2006 Johannesburg, Lions v Sharks    8-36 L
11 Feb 2006 Johannesburg, Lions v Stormers 12-23 L

The Lions have not even won a home game against the top SA sides in that time!
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
I try to illustarte the closeness of our matches. If you want to compare wins only well the Cheetahs beat your second best team at home.

The Tahs are the only ones who had blowout matches, the Force and Brumbies kept both matches with the Reds close.

So what if the Cheetahs beat our 2nd best team? This is about conference games.

You complain about how the Reds got easy points from our conference but they lost to the Tahs and Brumbies, the Stormers only lost the Bulls. They got easy points it seems?
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
OK I see what you try to do, the weak Cheetahs beat the Tahs at home. If they played in the Aus Conferense they would be second behind the Reds.

2012 will have the same thing. Reds run away with your conferense and have easy games to top the log.
Yeah the Reds had it easy. That's why they won the comp and it had nothing to do with them being a formidable team on the paddock. Remember Newlands last year? Stormers were on fire and like a rock until the Reds played them at home. No easy run, home ground advantage ect. Just plan and simple got in the Stormers face, won the confrontation and won the game. The next excuse was "but they haven't played a NZ team yet". Well we know how that ended up. I remember beating their top two sides not once but twice.

People can whinge and moan all they like but it won't stop me defending my teams achievments proudly. Reds won because plain and simply they were the best side that year.
 

Brisbok

Cyril Towers (30)
Yeah the Reds had it easy. That's why they won the comp and it had nothing to do with them being a formidable team on the paddock. Remember Newlands last year? Stormers were on fire and like a rock until the Reds played them at home. No easy run, home ground advantage ect. Just plan and simple got in the Stormers face, won the confrontation and won the game. The next excuse was "but they haven't played a NZ team yet". Well we know how that ended up. I remember beating their top two sides not once but twice.

People can whinge and moan all they like but it won't stop me defending my teams achievments proudly. Reds won because plain and simply they were the best side that year.

...of the top 6 teams last year, the Reds played two away games (Waratahs, Stormers) and won one, lost one. They played the Crusaders at home twice and the Blues at home twice and didn't play the Sharks at all. We all know how difficult it is to play away games and that makes the Reds win against the Stormers even more significant. There's no doubting that was a great win for the Reds.

The Reds played 7 games against the bottom four teams last year (Rebels x2, Lions x 1, Brumbies x2, Force x2). The Crusaders played 2 games against the bottom four teams (Brumbies x1, Force x1, Lions x0, Rebels x0). The difference on the final table was 5 points or 1 bonus point win. If you were a betting man, would you back the Crusaders to get at least 1 bonus point win or 2 four point wins in 5 games against bottom four opposition?

To say that the Reds got a slightly better draw than the Crusaders last year (without taking into consideration that the Crusaders did not play 1 home game all season) would be a little bit of an understatement.

IMO, taking all of the above into consideration, the Crusaders were the best team by a country mile last year. With the Reds a distant 2nd.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
... and yet the trophy is in the cabinet at Reds HQ. Funny that.

I do agree they had a better draw and the Crusaders were a tad unlucky. However they had 80 minutes in the final to right that wrong and could not.
 

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Ruggo went about it the wrong way, the Reds were definitely helped by a fantastic draw but that doesn't change the fact that the Stormers won more games in their conference than them so the conference system did not help them.
 

Brisbok

Cyril Towers (30)
... and yet the trophy is in the cabinet at Reds HQ. Funny that.

I do agree they had a better draw and the Crusaders were a tad unlucky. However they had 80 minutes in the final to right that wrong and could not.

...yes, after playing a semi final in South Africa the previous weekend. They would have spent most of the week travelling over 10,000km's and then adjusting to a new timezone while the Reds had a full week preparing in Brisbane. Not quite the same preparation is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top