Reds vs Crusaders Super Rugby Rd11 2012

[No4918]

So you want a reason for prefering Gill. Here goes.

Pocock could easily adapt his game to play 6 and still be a massive nuisance at the ruck. Pocock and Hooper will probably be better at slowing opposition ball. Gill IMHO will be a better stealer of the ball then both so play him at 7. Hooper could play the bench. I dont think having all 3 in a wallabies 22 will be a stupid idea in the future. They will all prob be nearly first picked in other countries so would be silly not to take advantage of that. The Reds have shown with their games with a Gill/Robinson combo how well it has the potential to work and the Aus side could really benefit from this.

 

[qwerty51]

Surely you're kidding? I wouldn't even have 2 of them in a 22. They've all 80 min players and having them on the field at the same time at test level would be disastrous. Way to lose every lineout and lack go forward.

 

[Slim 293]

That would be assuming Gill is preferred over Hooper, which is probably not the case...

And dual opensides for the Wallabies is a concept that should be long dead...

Particularly when we have plenty of good 6 options in Higginbotham, Dennis and Mowen...

Gill is needed for the JWC, and there's no reason to have him for the domestic tests against Wales and Scotland when we already have Pocock, and Hooper who is the form Aussie openside (I'm sure Reds fans will disagree though)...

Gill can always join the squad for the RC, or the EOYT...

 

[Bowside]

It would be silly to have 3 opensides in the squad with Pocock to start in all available games though...

He'll probably get an opportunity on the EOYT... but there's no need for him in the squad with Pocock and Hooper...

It benefits no one to have him not playing the JWC, and not playing test rugby at the same time...

It depends on what game plan deans chooses.

I think he has the option now to play higginbotham and 2 opensides, but the game plan would have to be incredibly up-tempo for it to work.

 

[the sabanator]

I haven't seen it mentioned (correct me if I'm wrong), but the Reds' recent spate of good form really has come from Digby's return. His work rate and defence are phenomenal, but his mere presence on the park is a massive threat in attack. Some players are said to have this quality (SBW and Freuan are the first two that come to mind), but only Digby lives up to the reputation of being a game changer, week in, week out. If he develops a boot for a good return kick he'll be the ultimate winger, but I wouldn't want that to be at the expense of his dangerous return game.

5 Reds really impressed me today - Higginbotham, Gill, Lucas, Harris (apart from his off day with the boot) and, scrumming aside, Hanson. Hanson's work rate in the first half was exceptional and his try was a nice early reward for the hard work that would follow. Shipperley also looked solid, and Genia is returning to form.

With the injuries to Lilo and O'Connor, would seeing Lucas in a gold 10 jumper really be that much of a stretch? Credit where credit's due, he's played very well at 10 this year. While nowhere near the player JOC (James O'Connor) is, Lucas is a solid option - rarely gets beaten in defence, a solid, if not overwhelming, kicking game, and makes 95% of the right options in attack.

 

[qwerty51]

While nowhere near the player JOC (James O'Connor) is, Lucas is a solid option - rarely gets beaten in defence, a solid, if not overwhelming, kicking game, and makes 95% of the right options in attack.

Yes it would. Beale will be 10.

 

[Bowside]

I think it may be a step too far for lucas and I suspect Beale might be the man at 10.

 

[the sabanator]

I really don't rate Beale as a 10, and he's been off at 15 too. In reality the only thing he has going for him now is name and the ability to do something outrageous once every three games

 

[cyclopath]

There is a thread for Wallaby discussion. Move it there. No more of it here please. This is Reds v Crusaders.

 

[RedsHappy]

For all the justified praise for Higgers, once again this match we see a potentially crucial weak spot: under pressure in attack, when Higgers' support is not easily accessible or in the right line, he often makes a very poor 'hopeful' short pass into nowhere, usually low and messy of a type support can't fix. Possession lost.

 

[qwerty51]

Saw the Gill penalty again, definitely wrong and not how Bryce was refereeing the breakdown earlier. That inconsistent word again! Digby got done for holding on in the 1st half and Marshall criticised the call being harsh because Digby was barely given time to play the ball. Gill was very fast on his feet and had his hands on the ball before the first attacker arrived to the breakdown, much the same as Digby's. He was legal before the ruck was formed and going on the previous calls in the game it should've been a holding on penalty.

Oh well what can you do, similar the McCaw penalty in the last year's fixture in terms of context in the game which I thought was harsh as well.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

As I said before... Lawrence was pretty bad towards both sides...

He didn't influence the outcome...

Both sides had good attacking moments that fell apart from poor handling or poor decision making...

The 'Saders seemed to lift towards the end of the second half and despite the scoreline looked set for victory...

I just came home from training & the occupants of my house pretty much have this same view Slim (obviously have to watch the replay myself).

Reading through this thread the whinging is really quite nauseating. I think the phase "well, whatever helps you sleep at night b**ch" is probably the best response I'd give to anyone coming up with Bryce as the reason for the Saders victory. We've been screwed by poor decisions ourselves, we had a decision last year that pretty much handed victory to the opposition on what was an absolute dogs breakfast of a call (see qwerty post above, that's what I'm referring to), not to mention the pedestrian performance of the Assistant refs. That being said we should have been good enough not to let it get to that point. So, to the whingers, whether you were screwed - legit or not, do as I was told to do & suck it up, get over it - pay credit to the opposition.

Super happy to come home to the news the Saders won this one! Fark yeah!!!! Against all odds boys!!!!!! Now off to celebrate.

 

[Antony]

Oh well what can you do, similar the McCaw penalty in the last year's fixture in terms of context in the game which I thought was harsh as well.

That's the big point for me. If Bryce is a gamble, I for one know whether I'd rather him pay off in a final or a round-robin game.

 

[tranquility]

If Bryce is a "gamble" as your say... Why is it his job to be judicial?

 

[tragic]

I just came home from training & the occupants of my house pretty much have this same view Slim (obviously have to watch the replay myself).

Reading through this thread the whinging is really quite nauseating. I think the phase "well, whatever helps you sleep at night b**ch" is probably the best response I'd give to anyone coming up with Bryce as the reason for the Saders victory. We've been screwed by poor decisions ourselves, we had a decision last year that pretty much handed victory to the opposition on what was an absolute dogs breakfast of a call (see qwerty post above, that's what I'm referring to), not to mention the pedestrian performance of the Assistant refs. That being said we should have been good enough not to let it get to that point. So, to the whingers, whether you were screwed - legit or not, do as I was told to do & suck it up, get over it - pay credit to the opposition.

Super happy to come home to the news the Saders won this one! Fark yeah!!!! Against all odds boys!!!!!! Now off to celebrate.

At least try watching the game before you pass comment.
The "suck it up" "sore losers" blah blah blah is equally nauseating and predictable.
There have been some valid complaints and some not so valid complaints about the standard of refereeing in this game but at least they came from an informed viewpoint.

 

[twenty seven]

In the 2nd half the Crusaders popped the Reds hooker and got the penalty. They kicked 10 metres from Reds line and from the line-out the Crusaders got a loose head scrum. In a mighty effort the Reds popped their hooker 3, yes 3 times and he merely resets the scrum each time. Bryce equals serendipity.

Thank you. Saw the same thing and got a little frustrated!!!!

 

[Cave Dweller]

"Reward the stronger scrum". This is a term the Kiwis like to use but it is causing some confusion amongst referees and is encouraging stronger teams to cheat in their dominance

 

[Gnostic]

I asked before but does anyone know Harris' percentage from when he missed his first one?

How does someone get 23? in a row then be so bad? Must be all confidence for him.

Injury? He hasn't been right since.

 

[qwerty51]

"Reward the stronger scrum". This is a term the Kiwis like to use but it is causing some confusion amongst referees and is encouraging stronger teams to cheat in their dominance

Replace scrum with ruck and it works as well.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Replace scrum with ruck and it works as well.

At the ruck they created the problem of "protect the cheater" when they took away rucking.

Then there is this. Cannot believe the commentators call this good rugby nor the ref penalized Franks.