Round 7: Reds v Rebels - Saturday 30 March @ Suncorp

[RedsHappy]

I think it is fair enough to say that this place would be crowing with words like "vindication" had the game gone differently.

Brad was put in a position he should not have been. Brad's personal ego strengths aside he was palpably not ready for this role. This has been further complicated by an HQ not willing (or at least not publicly demonstrating a will) to haul him up with obvious commercial questions. I suspect this will have longer term impacts on his coaching ability. Desire to go it alone etc.

We will continue with sporadic performances in 2019, I have said it before but fans must simply hang on.

But to focus on going forward, which even Quade supporters must do (if they are to remain Red fans) - nothing in last night's game, nothing in relation to the return of Quade - has any import on the positives that Thorn is actually achieving. This year will remain scatty, but come 2020, Thorn will no longer be the green novice he was. This may not guarantee finals footy inn time, but it certainly lends itself to far superior performances year on year.

I am very pleased with how Quade is going. And I am also building a grudging respect for the Red HC.

Genuine Q: which positives etc are these? On a consistent basis, and when compared with 'the lost years 2013-18' so far in 2019 I see only one: player fitness over 80 mins.

On the current Super table, after 6 games, we are equal last on points with the Jags and Wolves and have the 3rd worst PA of the teams that have played 6 games. Our defence has not improved markedly (there may be some nice defensive micro-moments that impress, but they are not sustained enough), and our attack still looks predictable and non-adaptive.

I also fail to see how the current Reds have the core player talent - let alone coaching - that forms up a team that could credibly make the 2019 Super finals. This team possesses too few genuinely distinguished players. That this is so goes to the QRU's poor or non-existent player and skills development programs and their erratic and panic-stricken recruitment (and sacking) policies over at least the last 5 years.

 

[RedsHappy]

100% I think it's given Quade a mental resolve that he mightn't have had 24 months ago, Quade has always had the natural talent and physical ability, the missing link has been how he dealt with pressure, emotions and confidence. I think a 12month banishment to clubland gave him the time for self-reflection and hunger to improve that side of his game.

2019 Quade isn't the same as 2017 Quade..

A84, these may all be relevant considerations re the evolution of QC (Quade Cooper). However, rightly or wrongly, for the good or the bad, IMO QC (Quade Cooper) is and always has been a player that needs a particular type of HC to both nurture his confidence and thoughtfully guide his way of executing his role.

He was terrific under Link and I think Wessels may well have the same good symbiosis with him. He seems to work best with HCs that are notably articulate, good people managers and quite 'intellectual-analytical' in their approaches to the game. HCs that are, whatever their other talents, by nature poor communicators and 'my way or the highway' types seem to incite QC (Quade Cooper)'s weaknesses rather than this strengths and lower his willingness to be involved and guided.

This is categorically not an attempt at QC (Quade Cooper) adulation or praise. Rather I believe it just is what it is with him.

 

[gel]

I would suggest that last week's performance simply could not have come from no where. It was a complete demolition of the opposition in a very methodical way that I haven't seen in any reds team since link left.

A following week poor performance *might* be just the immaturity of the team in trying to just flow on from last week's game. Or possibly fatigue from the effort they put in last week in stifling conditions (more than the Shaffer trip the rebels had).

I don't really know for sure, but the above have happened before to many young and inexperienced teams across a range of sports.

Overall this season though, the situational and game awareness of the reds players has been low and their skills pretty poor. Like previous years.

So it does take some serious stretches of the imagination to see any meaningful improvements.

 

[Ignoto]

Overall this season though, the situational and game awareness of the reds players has been low and their skills pretty poor. Like previous years.

I agree with most things you and everyone has been making about the current state. However, I feel that the current backs deserve some credit for their game awareness. They've shown more of than not when to take 'calculated' risks, i.e. when to run it out of their own half and when to kick.

Secondly, I think their kicking from general play has been miles better. Every back I've seen has been able to perform a good clearing kick under pressure and for the likes of Samu, Heggarty and Stewart, they've shown repeatably the ability to kick into the oppositions half.

That kicking ability is something we sorely miss at an international level, so in my mind, sign Sir Dave up for consulting the men in gold!

 

[LearningCurve]

I would suggest that last week's performance simply could not have come from no where. It was a complete demolition of the opposition in a very methodical way that I haven't seen in any reds team since link left.

A following week poor performance *might* be just the immaturity of the team in trying to just flow on from last week's game. Or possibly fatigue from the effort they put in last week in stifling conditions (more than the Shaffer trip the rebels had).

I don't really know for sure, but the above have happened before to many young and inexperienced teams across a range of sports.

Overall this season though, the situational and game awareness of the reds players has been low and their skills pretty poor. Like previous years.

So it does take some serious stretches of the imagination to see any meaningful improvements.

I felt last week that the Brumbies really melted in the heat and ran out of steam quickly - they were just so poor when a lot of those Canberra players we know are better than that so the heat had to have some influence. Either that or the Brumbies players have just lost their ability. It made the Reds look good - they took their opportunities and coped with the conditions a lot better. This week the Reds seemed to have no plan B beyond trying to overpower the opposition with big bodies and smarter opposition showed them up.

 

[Dan54]

I actually thought the way QC (Quade Cooper) played last night reaffirms his maturity, Quade of a few years back I suspect would of overplayed his hand to maybe prove a point to Reds management, but he played a good team game I thought.

 

[liquor box]

A84, these may all be relevant considerations re the evolution of QC (Quade Cooper). However, rightly or wrongly, for the good or the bad, IMO QC (Quade Cooper) is and always has been a player that needs a particular type of HC to both nurture his confidence and thoughtfully guide his way of executing his role.

He was terrific under Link and I think Wessels may well have the same good symbiosis with him. He seems to work best with HCs that are notably articulate, good people managers and quite 'intellectual-analytical' in their approaches to the game. HCs that are, whatever their other talents, by nature poor communicators and 'my way or the highway' types seem to incite QC (Quade Cooper)'s weaknesses rather than this strengths and lower his willingness to be involved and guided.

This is categorically not an attempt at QC (Quade Cooper) adulation or praise. Rather I believe it just is what it is with him.

The key seems to be having someone who is actually a good manager of people, not a good manager of a football team.

It can sometimes be a generational thing, look at how many "older" managers in business struggle to work with young employees, Link appeared to work with QC (Quade Cooper) at his level, even to the point of using social media as a communication tool, and he also seemed to let QC (Quade Cooper) have a say in the team direction.

Thorn does not seem to be the type of person who would delegate, it seems that his way is the only way.

This can be a good thing, but only lasts for a couple of seasons then the team get sick of being dictated to. Eddie Jones has this intensity that cannot sustain a dynasty.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...inals-to-incorporate-phone-breaks-in-meetings

Maybe the younger players need phone breaks

 

[Rebels3]

Bill Belichick, Alex Ferguson, Craig Bellamy, Wayne Bennett etc. might beg to differ. All brilliant people manager but only of people wanting to play to their rules, otherwise they are quickly recycled through the system.

There is no right of wrong way, some people perform their best with someone kicking them up the bum everyday others need a relaxed environment.

I actually think Thorn is going to be a brilliant coach. The Reds were an absolute shambles when he took over. Yes the results might not look any different, but the cattle looks a lot more promising and the glimpses of high end performance is more frequent than it was.

Minus Bellamy, each and everyone of the guys above failed for results for a number of years. Not saying he will end up in their league, but if you continually recycle through coaches you just get the same results. It’s a systematic issue at QLD that has been festering for almost a decade, it’s requiring someone willing to sit through the ugly stuff and have the fruits of it long term, than short cuts to produce marginal improvements in the short.

Even Jones for all his faults has a WC final, the greatest upset in rugby history (Jap v RSA), equal world record winning streak and a Super Rugby title under his name. Not a bad resume

 

[oztimmay]

Reckon real paying crowd number was c. 5,000 at best

There seemed to be a lot more people sitting on the broadcast side of the ground. A lot more than you see in the picture.

 

[dru]

There seemed to be a lot more people sitting on the broadcast side of the ground. A lot more than you see in the picture.

Hence why I asked the question. Without speculation, or counting empty stands, does anyone have the official crowd?

 

[LearningCurve]

Hence why I asked the question. Without speculation, or counting empty stands, does anyone have the official crowd?

10.800 according to the newspaper.

 

[RedsHappy]

There seemed to be a lot more people sitting on the broadcast side of the ground. A lot more than you see in the picture.

Pls note: above I said 'paying' crowd. It's well known that in recent years the QRU at club, school levels etc gives out large number of free Reds home tickets. It's rather obvious why.

Secondly, the so-called official crowd number of 10,800 for this game means that Suncorp was allegedly at c. 21% of capacity, one fifth. I know that stadium well and no way was it at 21% of capacity for the Rebels game.

As discussed here over recent years, it's also well known that the QRU exaggerates its home crowd numbers.

The current Reds home crowd levels are an embarrassment and are well below those of the 2009 Reds' 'horror' year that preceded or paralleled the QRU's quasi-bankruptcy later that year.

As gel said recently, since c. 2013 the deterioration in greater Brisbane's general interest in rugby and the Reds has been vast. The fact that the calamitous coaching, team and playing mediocrity has now gone on uncorrected for 6+ years - and still continues into 2019 - is the reason.

 

[KevinO]

^^^Was my 4th trip to Suncorp to watch the Rebels

1) Yes, it was the worst crowd I have seen.
2) The quietest I have seen
3) The worst Reds team I have seen

When you look at Suncorp for crowd, it must be 33% of the capacity is the top level, which is fully closed. So I agree the figures are exaggerated

 

[RedsHappy]

^^^Was my 4th trip to Suncorp to watch the Rebels

1) Yes, it was the worst crowd I have seen.
2) The quietest I have seen
3) The worst Reds team I have seen

When you look at Suncorp for crowd, it must be 33% of the capacity is the top level, which is fully closed. So I agree the figures are exaggerated

Let me just say: that is commitment to a team!....and good on you for it!

Let's go back to Reds' historical crowds for a minute, just to put the current horrendous decline in Reds' home crowds in perspective as at 2019:

Super Rugby 2010. Following a (then perceived) nadir year 2009 for the Reds, the 2010 Reds were showing some excellent new signs of exciting, dynamic winning play (eg beating Crusaders at home, etc) under Link.

Round 11 at Suncorp, 23 April 2010. Reds v Stormers. Reds beat one of SA's best teams 16-13.

Officially reported crowd (from SANZAR's official Wikipedia record): 30,259.

Now, even if we allow say a 20% 'artificial boost' factor that is still a real crowd of c. 24,000. (I was at that game and I can recall the crowd on observation being at least this and likely more.)

The overall point being that the QRU's continuously disastrous mismanagement of the Reds (all aspects) since Link's departure has in fact taken the real level of support for this team to never-before-seen low levels of fan commitment and game attendance.

 

[Finsbury Girl]

Fark me, same old, same old. 1 step forward 5 steps back.

No consistency, still unable to unleash the backs.

Another failed season

 

[RebelYell]

Have said this many times before, and will say it again...

Every team in Super Rugby in Australia exaggerates their crowds. And in the A-League, and the NRL, and any other team in any other competition in the world who wants to disguise how poor their crowd is.

It is common, accepted practice.