Reds vs Waratahs - 29th April RD 10
- Thread starter No4918
- Start date
- Status
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
The Tahs didn't.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Ulrich
Nev Cottrell (35)
Any win against your greatest foe is a good win.
There is something in it for the purists. Rivalry, particularly as old as this, is something special no matter the manner of the win. I can vouch for this as a Saffa.
100+ years is something special and anybody that tries to take away from it is a moron.
Definitely not the greatest game, but a win for either side is something to treasure.
There is something in it for the purists. Rivalry, particularly as old as this, is something special no matter the manner of the win. I can vouch for this as a Saffa.
100+ years is something special and anybody that tries to take away from it is a moron.
Definitely not the greatest game, but a win for either side is something to treasure.
I thought a draw
Both were pretty good, Horwitz kept Kerevi quiet, made some good yards
I thought Clarke looked better actually, no dumb decisions, very safe under the high ball took the ball up with vigor and continually got over the gain line
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Clarke looked very good.
upthereds#!
Peter Johnson (47)
Clarke > Perese.
I just like the way Perese bulldogged naiyaravoro, but I guess that's the same as horwitz doing it to Kerevi. Clarke probably had the better all round game as did DP
I just like the way Perese bulldogged naiyaravoro, but I guess that's the same as horwitz doing it to Kerevi. Clarke probably had the better all round game as did DP
T
TOCC
Guest
There were 3 Wallabies locks on the pitch last night, yet a 20yr old with 4 Super Rugby caps played better then all of them
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
The same thing was said in 2015 IIRC. It's difficult to predict the performance of the national team based on the Super rugby performances because the make up of the Wallabies will invariably be the players who contribute most to the positive aspects of the game and the least to the negative aspects. I don't have the time but if you were to go through and cherry pick the players from last night's game who you think will be in the Wallabies and compare their collective stats to the overall stats you will probably get a pleasant surprise in most areas (there will be exceptions).
I'm not trying to sugar coat anything, I think we will be 1 from 3 v the All Blacks but I think we will beat everyone else this year up until the end of the RC except for maybe SA away and be 3 from 4 at worst on the EOYT.
gel
Ken Catchpole (46)
Wrong. The referee ignored Tah indiscretions
FWIW, I agree with everything else that QH said in his post, but to ignore a poor performance by the referee and how that affected the outcome is revisionist and wrong.
There have been some blatantly one sided refereeing performances over the years that deserve criticism (Berry vs Blues, Berry vs Reds, IGA guy vs brumbies, Lawrence vs Reds). Are they only thing that affected the outcome? No.
But this bullshit of ignoring poor performances in favour of some kind of political correctness or higher horse crap is devoid of logic.
I made no mention of any other points in QHs post because on the whole I agreed with it. Except that bit.
There were plenty of things the Reds were penalized for that were ignored when the Tahs did it because the referee was watching one side only. Ergo, the Tahs did not maintain discipline, their discipline was just as lax as the Reds but they got away with it because the referee had a bad game.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
True, but I don't think any of those 3 will be in the Wallabies except maybe Simmons. Lukhan probably will be eventually though.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
As Scott Allen used to show so compellingly in his long-ago excellent game analyses, the crucial pieces of objectivity required in these types of 'ref got X and Y wrong or was biased against Team A' analyses if they are to be valid vs excuses-making by one side, are:
- the observer concerned has to carefully analyse the entire game end to end, not just fragments of it
- the observer has to be meticulous in analysing every ref call and looking for errors of commission or omission against both sides with zero bias
- the observer must have an excellent knowledge of the laws of the game
Scott and others who used the above method and applied it carefully without pre-judgement often came up with very different conclusions re a ref's performance and error rate or alleged error bias vs those of we the armchair warriors.
- the observer concerned has to carefully analyse the entire game end to end, not just fragments of it
- the observer has to be meticulous in analysing every ref call and looking for errors of commission or omission against both sides with zero bias
- the observer must have an excellent knowledge of the laws of the game
Scott and others who used the above method and applied it carefully without pre-judgement often came up with very different conclusions re a ref's performance and error rate or alleged error bias vs those of we the armchair warriors.
Just watched the game after being out last night and successfully avoiding the score.
I understand the angst about the refereeing. Waratahs definitely got the rub of the green, and that is huge in such a tight game. None of the decisions were out-and-out clangers, more the accumulation of them that had an impact IMO.
That said, the Tahs took their chances well and probably deserved the win. In the last 20 minutes they held their composure and had the bulk of territory and possession, and the Reds just didn't do enough to hold their lead.
I really enjoyed the match, and thought both sides showed really good intent.
The difference maker was Foley. He had a belter IMO. Looked like a swan amongst ducks. Controlled the Tahs in attack, and nailed those pressure kicks that were right on his range.
Quade was clearly playing on one leg (that intercept was painful to watch in a way, as a fit Quade scores that every time), so it's a bit harsh to compare him to Bernard. But in the end I think that was the difference between the two teams.
.
I understand the angst about the refereeing. Waratahs definitely got the rub of the green, and that is huge in such a tight game. None of the decisions were out-and-out clangers, more the accumulation of them that had an impact IMO.
That said, the Tahs took their chances well and probably deserved the win. In the last 20 minutes they held their composure and had the bulk of territory and possession, and the Reds just didn't do enough to hold their lead.
I really enjoyed the match, and thought both sides showed really good intent.
The difference maker was Foley. He had a belter IMO. Looked like a swan amongst ducks. Controlled the Tahs in attack, and nailed those pressure kicks that were right on his range.
Quade was clearly playing on one leg (that intercept was painful to watch in a way, as a fit Quade scores that every time), so it's a bit harsh to compare him to Bernard. But in the end I think that was the difference between the two teams.
.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
The Tahs recievers in the backline from the long throw were all inside the ten before the lineout was over for that try too.
Balanced out by Smith's excellent NFL block to open up the channel for Higgers to link with Hunt for the first try
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Most people don't have the time or inclination to painstakingly watch a whole game freeze-frame by freeze-frame and code it all objectively. From experience, it takes ages. And ultimately, people will still pick selective pieces that piss them off the most and keep throwing them at you. Can be thankless.
I posted it last night here and on Twitter, and watching again has not changed my mind - I thought the Reds played more of the "better" attacking footy, and their defence was more aggressive and forced the higher number of Waratah errors. But it was lost with the loose, and mainly avoidable penalties in the latter stages, from which the Waratahs took full toll, points-wise. Really was a game that could have gone either way, and I couldn't say one served it more than the other.
- Status