Reds 2014

[No4918]

Think we will pump the Cheetahs by a bucketload this week. They will likely be better than they were against the Rebels so at least a 10+ point win should be the goal. Bonus point would be great, think the conference spots will be decided by them. Also really need the points before heading to SA with the Lions suddenly not a sure thing and Sharks a big ask first up.

 

[Troy]

My daughter (7) is one if a few that will be presenting the players with their match day jerseys today at Ballymore and she's playing at half time on Fri night.

She's quite excited .... So am I!

 

[Scoey]

My daughter (7) is one if a few that will be presenting the players with their match day jerseys today at Ballymore and she's playing at half time on Fri night.

She's quite excited .. So am I!

Fantastic! This probably wants to be in the proud parents thread too my man!

 

[RedsHappy]

There is no point spreading the ball wide if you are up against a set defensive line..

The problem was in the forwards, lack of penetration and lack of bending the line meant the backline never had an opportunity. Conversely the Waratahs had an opposite scenario, there forwards were getting across the advantage line and setting a good platform for the backline, Reds backs were defensively never in the game because they were back peddling before they were even moving forward.



For those of you looking for someone to blame, just look back at the semi-final last year with the Crusaders, it was exactly the same scenario as Saturdays game..


The Reds have their strength, but they didn't play to them on the weekend, some fundamental kicking failures exasperated the problem and gave the Waratahs possession and field position..

Too right. In examining the subtle but marked competitive decline of the Reds since July 2011, one of the biggest factors is that, relative to the major improvements the Tahs, Rebels (part of 2013 and just wow in 2014), and Brums have made in the skill, intensity, offensive-defence tackling and ruck techniques, and sheer fitness of their forwards packs, the Reds' forwards as a totality have barely improved at all and arguably have gone backwards from their impressive contributions all of 2011.

What matters in elite rugby is staying ahead of the others in terms of relative capability, showing continual improvement and progress. Staying the same is equal to certain decline, just ask, for example, the Tahs and Force over the 2009-12 period.

The whole Reds' establishment IMO became subtly complacent and self-pleased after 2011 - we came to believe we'd just arrive and be automatically good. We have simply not improved enough in key departments and we watch as a new world gradually emerges and drives past us. Additionally, we've not replaced the crucial skills and contributions of Higgers and Samo (at his best).

So let's watch and see if Stiles can bite the clear bullet and effect some dramatic improvement in the totality of the Reds' forwards play. Soon, we must come to equal the general forwards' standards set by the likes of the 2014 Tahs and Chiefs, or we surely won't make the finals this year.

 

[suckerforred]

Anyway - what's up with S Finger? He had a lot of strapping on that he had cut off partway through. Didn't look 100% to bgein with.

Plus I really rate Chibba. He's bloody good. Third best hooker in the country at least.

I know FTS had a calf injury last year as well & it looked like the same leg. So not sure what is happening now.

Agree with you about Chibba. He is coming back from a serious neck injury though so not sure he will replace Saia anytime soon.

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

I know FTS had a calf injury last year as well & it looked like the same leg. So not sure what is happening now.

Yeah, I was confused by that injury - the strapping looked pretty ineffectual. I could hear people behind me at the pub commenting that it looked like strapping designed to cover up 'those flash tatoos'

The reds seem to carry smaller forwards (Finger, Daley, Gill, Schatzy*) which seems to hurt them at the breakdown. I get that we need mobile piggies to chase the fast flowing game that the Geni-ooper combo play, but it's no good having the fitness to be at the 3rd phase ruck when you haven't won the ball back at the 2nd phase midfield crash ball. Seeing The Tahs bash into the ruck really highlighted that for me and then when you saw the gaps opening up (the Betham try esp) you can see they didn't even have the fitness to keep up with a heavier pack.

I don't want to shit on the boys too much over one performance, away from home, the week after a war with the brums but they do need to be cautious that this doesn't become a habit.


*Schatzy is pretty goddamn big, but he's playing 8 - he needs to be higgers, palu big - which involves being scary and big which he rarely is.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Schatz is billed as the same weight as Kieran Read actually. That's about 4kg less than Higgers I believe.

Anyway the point I originally intended to make was that really, Gill is the only real drop in size we've added since 2010. Quirk and Schatz only give up about 5kg between them to Higgers and Samo.

Fainga'a and Daley were first choice starters during our peak (2010-2011 weren't they). They've both also bulked up slightly since then. It's not size that's the issue.

Seeing Simmons at a clean out blow straight over the top of Hooper who held on the get the penalty is what's lacking. Accuracy.

 

[USARugger]

We are lacking the combination of size/explosiveness that makes players like Higgers such an asset. We've got big guys, and explosive guys..just no big, explosive guys (at least at the moment it would seem).

Rugby, between set pieces, is a series of explosive collisions that we just aren't winning regularly enough. I think this even precedes the ruck in terms of flow of play and what determines how a team will fare over 80 minutes.

A bit in the spirit of what @Redshappy said..you don't have to lose a single collision to be losing the collision battle, the opposition just has to do it once more than you do. We seem to "break even" in contact a lot and truly are lacking our Higgers/Samo to go galloping into the defense, tying up 2-3+ defenders, and sometimes even going straight through. I don't know, I've been repeating this for almost two years now and am beginning to feel like a broken record when it comes to the topic of ball runners in our forwards. I feel like at best we've stagnated in this department, more realistically we have stepped backwards.

I do wish we had let one or two of the younger guys go if it allowed us to make room for Higgers (I honestly don't remember the details around why he was let go so if I'm saying something stupid here be gentle). Samo was always leaving because of age but we really let Higgers go as he was blossoming into a great Super 15 back rower that not only lead with his actions but changed the entire dynamic of our pack with his play. 20/20 hindsight, I guess.

 

[I like to watch]

The Rebels Higgers,is a far superior animal to the Reds Higgers IMO

 

[USARugger]

The Rebels Higgers,is a far superior animal to the Reds Higgers IMO

I don't think there's much of a reason he wouldn't have followed a similar developmental pathway if he stayed at the Reds. All he's really changed is that he plays tighter to the ruck, has better body position at the ruck and is being given the leadership role he hinted at wanting while at the Reds (maybe this was a deal breaker, as well as a factor in him developing the way he did).

Shit, it's not like the coaching at the Rebels during his development was better than it was at Ballymore during the same time period.

What bugs me the most is that it isn't like he was old and wasn't a player worth investing some more time in. He could have been a facet in the side for a long time. We let him go at what, 25?

 

[Train Without a Station]

We didn't "let him go". We offered him the best that we could considering all of our other premiership players were also commanding a higher market value and coming off contract. He chose the better money the Rebels were able to offer.

 

[Braveheart81]

What bugs me the most is that it isn't like he was old and wasn't a player worth investing some more time in. He could have been a facet in the side for a long time. We let him go at what, 25?

I don't know if it's so much a case of letting him go as being unable to secure all your stars after winning the title.

He was behind Genia, Cooper and Ioane at the very least and obviously decided that he wanted to be paid like a star player rather than remaining with the Reds (which I completely understand).

 

[I like to watch]

I don't think it's a developmental thing,more of a style thing.
Obviously it suited Link for him to play as wide as he did.
But to the untrained eye,he seems more impressive playing tighter.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It wasn't a massive greed move from Higgers either.

When the ARU offer came, it was lower than his management had advised him he would be worth and he took the higher Rebels offer that he intended to decline.

Obviously he had a figure in his head he needed to make as a minimum, and from there he would make his choice based on other factors. Basically how any of us likely acted when looking for a new job.

 

[USARugger]

@Train Without a Station

I hope that what I said above didn't make you think I feel that Higgers is greedy. Couldn't be further from the truth.

I grew up with NFL/MLB/NBA after all, players leaving for $$$ is nothing new to me and brings up absolutely no emotions in regards to the player themselves. It's a free market!

I don't know if it's so much a case of letting him go as being unable to secure all your stars after winning the title.

True. Just not sure if Reds fully realized what they would be losing or they may have found a few more sofas to rifle through

 

[GaffaCHinO]

It wasn't a massive greed move from Higgers either.

When the ARU offer came, it was lower than his management had advised him he would be worth and he took the higher Rebels offer that he intended to decline.

Obviously he had a figure in his head he needed to make as a minimum, and from there he would make his choice based on other factors. Basically how any of us likely acted when looking for a new job.

Which is what is wrong with the top up system.

 

[Lee Grant]

Schatz is billed as the same weight as Kieran Read actually. That's about 4kg less than Higgers I believe.

Some players just play big and it doesn't matter what they weigh. Sean O'Brien of Leinster and Ireland is a perfect example; he has the effect of a heavier man.

When you get such a fellow and he has skills as well, like say Faletau or Picamoles, it is happy days indeed.

Not to the point: but when somebody mentions a 6 or and 8 that has "all the skills" I don't take a lot of notice: they have to play a hard game first and the rest is cream.

This was my original opinion of Higginbotham, and even Fardy before his rise. I will be looking at Higgers this year to watch his hardness index because the signs before his injury were excellent.

I wouldn't be too critical of young backrowers. They have to find their way in different aspects of their play; but if they can't improve their physical domination, pound for pound, you have to look for young bruisers who can be taught the skills.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

True. Just not sure if Reds fully realized what they would be losing or they may have found a few more sofas to rifle through

In hindsight, they definitely should have tried harder to keep him.

It is hard to argue that there is a more influential Australian forward in Super Rugby.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Gaffachino I don't really see how it's a massive issue with the system. The ARU wants the deals to be made independently so that the central contract is just the cream on the top so to speak.

If the system was changed, the only difference would be that we would be saying he left because the Reds didn't offer him enough, rather than the ARU now. If they revised the system, nothing would fundamentally change for the better.

 

[Train Without a Station]

BH, I think they made the right call. Not offering Higgers more enabled them to keep Schatz, Quirk and Gill. Would he have been worth keeping if it was at the expense of 2 of those players?