Super 14 vs Heineken

[Scarfman]

Tomorrow night the boss is going out so I'm going to watch the S14 and HEC finals back to back. Compare and contrast sort of thing.

With special reference to the ELVs.

But also with reference to odd things like how come the HEC looks so slow and useless but then these teams keep beating us. How a team with 8 overweight blokes who flop in the mud for 9 months can then come out and beat McCaw/So'O and so on.

 

[Pfitzy]

What I noticed about the Heineken final - and maybe it was just the two teams involved - but there was bugger all in the way of decent scrummaging, and bugger all in the way of a ruck contest, compared to S14 generally. Its hard to make a comparison based on the few games of NH rugby I've seen this year, but with penalties at ruck time there's just to attacking the ball.

 

[fatprop]

Heineken was played at a slower pace and closer to the ruck area.

Super 14 was played with more width, pace and power.

 

[Blue]

Unfortunately the NH fans will always talk of the Super 14 rugbny as "touch rugby", "fairy rugby" etc becuase they read Stephen Jones in the Times and have never actually watched much of it.

They are just caught in a totally disillusioned state.

Intersting was how Peter Hewat cleverly avoided the question in the Rugby Club on Thursday. Can't rubbish the people who pay your keep I guess.

The fact that Leicester made the finals shows me there the Premiership is at. They are the most boring team on the planet.

 

[Lee Grant]

To be fair: London Irish made the final also and they were one of the most expansive teams in the GP.

We have to cue T78 to come in here and say that they like that kind of rugby over there compared to what we had in the Super14, and he would have a point.

Don't get me wrong: I like both forms of rugby - for that it what is going on - two forms; but I have seen a lot of mindless unstructured rugby in the Super14 this year - and in the Top14, for that matter - and sometimes it's almost a relief to get back to the order and certitude of the GP, ML and HC.

But unlike critics of the Super14 in the north I see the Super14 evolving and getting structure back into the Super14 game - assuming we will be able to keep the Free Kick sanctions here to keep up the pace of rugby.

We have already seen an improvement by some teams in their ping pong kicking so that there is more ping and less pong. More and more, the better teams are landing their kicks outside opponents 22s and/or having the kicker, or his team mate, arrive to contest the ball so that the high kick was transposed into an attacking weapon.

An earlier reconfiguration of defences following the sudden award of a FK to opponents is also evident, though there have been a multitude of exceptions to that improvement, especially late in a game.

Whatever, but I wish I could see an improvement in the refereeing especially a dismantling of the extra layer of warnings - Ïf you don't get your players to improve I will go to penalties." Give me a break - penalise them for foul play under the deliberate infringement sanction - earlier in the game, more often , and without warning.

And if they delay giving the ball back or accidentally on purpose deflect the ball to delay action, penalise them - any decent ref could find something in the Law 10 Foul Play laws to cover this.

But it is an old song I sing.

 

[Biffo]

with reference to odd things like how come the HEC looks so slow and useless but then these teams keep beating us. How a team with 8 overweight blokes who flop in the mud for 9 months can then come out and beat McCaw/So'O and so on.

I am not sure what you mean by this question. Who are "these teams" who keep beating "us"? Who are they and who are we?

I recall that the score last year was 19-1 in 3N v 6N.

If you are referring to the RWC and specifically England beating Australia, then the answer is simple: we had a coach who picked the heaviest player available in each position and engaged in flopping on the (hard) ground with blokes who were better at flopping than our blokes were.

If you are referring to France beating NZ, the answer is equally simple: France played NZ's game better than NZ did.

The RWC tournament was won by the smartest team. The South Africans played their own game when it suited them and the opposition's game when it suited them.

 

[formeropenside]

Biffo, what selectorial changes would you have made before the 07 1/4 final?

I would have had Blake for Baxter, and probably Baxter as LHP or on the bench as the reserve prop. Maybe Benn Robinson at 1, but I dont know how much of that is hindsight now. I would have taken Horwill in the WC squad but I doubt I would have played him.

Game plan, and/or the execution thereof, was the issue, not the specific cattle on the park.

 

[Biffo]

Biffo, what selectorial changes would you have made before the 07 1/4 final?

Game plan, and/or the execution thereof, was the issue, not the specific cattle on the park.

The point of my post was that the game plan and execution were the issues. If the plan was to get into a flopping contest with the poms, then the selections were correct.

We should know by now that it is folly for Australian reams to flop with the poms. If we knew that and prepared a no-flop plan, then selection would become the issue. You'd have to go back two years, even four years, to address that issue.

Re selections, you'd have to go back almost two years to right the wrongs.

 

[fatprop]

The poms were fantastic in that first half, their passing and movement was excellent. We were lucky to lose so closely as we were blown away.

 

[Gagger]

Really? I remember us having the wood on them out wide but getting smashed at the breakdown (and those things called scrums). We needed to have an ability to play a tight forward game. Which thankfully the Tahs have been practicing all year.

 

[PaarlBok]

One thing everybody seem to miss when comparing NH & SH is the crowds. Think home town support played a big role in 2007 WC and that one seem to caught the All Blacks. Always favourates but once that hometown team getting a sniff and the crowd sart to get vocal its very difficult to stop. Same story with the Wallabies.

We saw now on the weekend with the final and we'll see the same tendens in this Lion Tour matches. This will be a good yardstick for where we stand and I think honestly the NH teams are much closet to what we seem to think.

 

[Biffo]

I think honestly the NH teams are much closet to what we seem to think.

Last year, 3N 19 6N 1. That is close?

 

[PaarlBok]

I think honestly the NH teams are much closet to what we seem to think.

Last year, 3N 19 6N 1. That is close?

Cant differ with that fact but the heading is S14 vs Heineken. Totally two different animals.

 

[Biffo]

I think honestly the NH teams are much closet to what we seem to think.

Last year, 3N 19 6N 1. That is close?

Cant differ with that fact but the heading is S14 vs Heineken. Totally two different animals.

Agreed. Scarfie got me confused with his opening post. I thought the thread was about S14 and HC but it digressed to national.

The Bulls on Saturday night put up a performance far superior to any I have ever seen from a European club team.

 

[Scarfman]

I think Biffo has a point.

On the other hand, what if we discover that these teams are better at making us play like them than we are at making them play like us.

If you follow me.

Based on the one time I've watched the game, I remember England killing us at the breakdown. Can't score tries without the ball.

 

[Biffo]

I think Biffo has a point.

On the other hand, what if we discover that these teams are better at making us play like them than we are at making them play like us.

If you follow me.

Thank you for agreeing, fellow sensei.

I follow you EXACTLY. RWC QF 2007, Wallabies sucked in, big time.

I might mention the corollary. In 1991 RWC poms tried to play our game (sucked in, big time, thank you Campo): 12-6 :lmao:

 

[Gagger]

Thing is, if the oppo have a great pack and decide to play it that way, you HAVE to get sucked in.

That's their sucker punch which we've fallen on for the last two RWCs

 

[Spook]

Australia did not perfrom against the Poms. If you took the performance the Aussie forwards put in against SA in SA that same year, we would have won.

 

[Pfitzy]

I would have had Blake for Baxter, and probably Baxter as LHP or on the bench as the reserve prop.

:nta:

Because we didn't look unfit enough?
Because it would have at least been acceptable to lose with Blake there?
Because Baxter actually WAS on the bench, and Shepherdson was the starting THP?

 

[Spook]

I would have had Blake for Baxter, and probably Baxter as LHP or on the bench as the reserve prop.

:nta:

Because we didn't look unfit enough?
Because it would have at least been acceptable to lose with Blake there?
Because Baxter actually WAS on the bench, and Shepherdson was the starting THP?

Baxter was out of form in 07 which is why Sheperdson was selected. Baxter came on off the bench and the scrum was still mullered. Vickerman was horrible that game as well - looked totally unfit.