Sandpit Fan
Nev Cottrell (35)
Rattue is the SH equivalent of Stephen Jones, i.e. a noted writer of rubbish rugby articles
This is way off base for him, usually his go is putting the slipper into NZ teams.
SupeRugby Final 2011: Queensland Reds V Canterbury Crusaders
- Thread starter Set piece magic
- Start date
- Status
Rattue is the SH equivalent of Stephen Jones, i.e. a noted writer of rubbish rugby articles
This is way off base for him, usually his go is putting the slipper into NZ teams.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Some well set out and summarised key stats from last weekend's SFs:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10736269
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10736269
armatt
Fred Wood (13)
Always wondered how you do them. <nerdgasm>Brilliant!</nerdgasm>
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
Tracey is one of the main contributors to a decent stats site haka.co.nz
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
A top bloke, Richie McCaw. A cheat, but then so are George Smith and David Pocock. I'd have him in my all time XV.
Z
Zeno
Guest
I just watched the highlights from Stormers v. Crusaders and I didn't see anything in the way of try-scoring potency from the Cru. At the end they botched a perfect pie: the scrum drove to the line under the posts, the halfback could have strolled in but instead shovelled it left where there was an overlap, but the last pass was spilled and the ball went into touch. You don't get points for winning scrums, just bragging rights.
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
Good point, but you know is it cheating per se if you are testing the refs boundaries to make sure you have a good grip on what they expect when refs can have quite differing views?
I remember going to a AB/France game in '88 and being astonished at the dirty crap Steve McDowell was pulling while the ball was elsewhere. Saw him punch the frogs a few times. Granted it probably kept them in line, .as we all know the frogs can be pretty putrid unchecked. McDowell Had a very clean rep in NZ as I recall compared to some other forwards of the day. Fact is he was just smart. Yeah probably cheating, but I think it was a facet of the game, and one the Wallabies weren't immune to back in the day. Granted it was probably pre Dwyer days!
At the end of the day you push the game to its limits, the ref sets those limits, and the smart players make sure they know what they are. Isn't that what Pocock/Smith/McCaw are so good at?
I think the refs 'appear' to have a greater influence over recent games due to the athletic and skills capability of most teams being so much more even after 15 years of pro-rugby. The refs decisions are therefore haveing a greater proprtional impact on the results than 15 yrs ago. The only ones who seem to care are the ones who aren't on the paddock.
I'm not happy with not having a neutral ref for the final but any ref can have a bad day ot the office (just like the players). More often than not players make more mistakes that impact scoring oportunities than refs do.
I'm expecting a very close game. The match ups alone point to that. The planet rugby site listed its 'team of the semis' which had 1 reds forward and 4 backs, 5 crusdares forwards and 2 or 3 backs). Big matches usually are won up front, is this a pointer to the result?
I have seen on a couple of sites a lot of ranting about how the reds have by far the best attacking backs in the universe as well as one of the best defences. Well to put that in perspective the points for/against at the end of the 18 rounds (or whatever the conference play thing was called) ...
Reds for 429, against 309
'Saders for 436, against 273.
Again its only stats but thers not much difference in the attack and if anything advantage crusaders in defence.
How would any rugby fan not want to watch this.
Crusaders by 5-9 if (big if) the forwards can play to the same pace and intensity of the semi.
I'm not happy with not having a neutral ref for the final but any ref can have a bad day ot the office (just like the players). More often than not players make more mistakes that impact scoring oportunities than refs do.
I'm expecting a very close game. The match ups alone point to that. The planet rugby site listed its 'team of the semis' which had 1 reds forward and 4 backs, 5 crusdares forwards and 2 or 3 backs). Big matches usually are won up front, is this a pointer to the result?
I have seen on a couple of sites a lot of ranting about how the reds have by far the best attacking backs in the universe as well as one of the best defences. Well to put that in perspective the points for/against at the end of the 18 rounds (or whatever the conference play thing was called) ...
Reds for 429, against 309
'Saders for 436, against 273.
Again its only stats but thers not much difference in the attack and if anything advantage crusaders in defence.
How would any rugby fan not want to watch this.
Crusaders by 5-9 if (big if) the forwards can play to the same pace and intensity of the semi.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
How many of the Reds tries came from Blues mistakes or counter attack?
It doesn't matter how you score points, as long as you score more than the opposition...
Tordah
Dave Cowper (27)
Wrong, Crusaders got one kickable penalty (3 pts) from a Stormer's scrum feed, and several meters of territory (and possession) through other pens or free kicks. Also, the pushover would have been likely if it wasn't in front of the posts, where there's no more room to push...
Langthorne
Phil Hardcastle (33)
I'm afraid you were all riled up without reason then - at no time did I campaign to get rid of Deans, nor did I call for him to be sacked. I did instigate discussion on the topic of Deans' tenure as Wallaby coach as I feel that a coach has a significant influence on many aspects of a team's performance and should therefore be scrutinised in the same way the players are scrutinised. As a result of this discussion (and the performance of the Wallabies) some posters decided that Deans should be sacked, and then it turned into a big shitfight with name calling and lost tempers. For the record, as with the republican debate, I would not support a change until the alternate option was clear - therefore no campaign to get rid of Deans.
Langthorne
Phil Hardcastle (33)
....back onto (this very interesting) topic...
I heartily agree that this match should be a cracker. These two teams have played some brilliant rugby this season and are deserving finalists.
As a team, the Reds are amazing. They are truely greater than the sum of their parts, which is a tribute to them and their coach. Looking over the likely starting teams, there are probably only 3 Reds players (Genia, Horwill, Ioane) who I (and I suspect many neutrals) would prefer over their opposite number in the Crusaders team. In that kind of situation the team with the better players would be big favourites, but I don't think it is so clear cut, as there is travel, fatigue, home ground, etc to be considered, plus of course the Reds' collective quality.
I know making a prediction is not obligatory, but based on what I have seen to date I think the Crusaders will buck the overwhelming history in terms of travel and away finals and win a close contest. I don't believe the ref will favour the home team and I don't believe the Crusdaers will make the same errors as the Blues did (poor control, inability to take advantage of set peice superiority, flinging it wide too early, generally poor descision making...).
Having said all of that, I wish the Reds the best of luck. If any Super team can beat the Crusaders in these circumstances it is the Reds.
Edit - for those who think the TAB have the odds wrong.......'the house always wins'
I heartily agree that this match should be a cracker. These two teams have played some brilliant rugby this season and are deserving finalists.
As a team, the Reds are amazing. They are truely greater than the sum of their parts, which is a tribute to them and their coach. Looking over the likely starting teams, there are probably only 3 Reds players (Genia, Horwill, Ioane) who I (and I suspect many neutrals) would prefer over their opposite number in the Crusaders team. In that kind of situation the team with the better players would be big favourites, but I don't think it is so clear cut, as there is travel, fatigue, home ground, etc to be considered, plus of course the Reds' collective quality.
I know making a prediction is not obligatory, but based on what I have seen to date I think the Crusaders will buck the overwhelming history in terms of travel and away finals and win a close contest. I don't believe the ref will favour the home team and I don't believe the Crusdaers will make the same errors as the Blues did (poor control, inability to take advantage of set peice superiority, flinging it wide too early, generally poor descision making...).
Having said all of that, I wish the Reds the best of luck. If any Super team can beat the Crusaders in these circumstances it is the Reds.
Edit - for those who think the TAB have the odds wrong.......'the house always wins'
Have you seen the stats for Tahs' matches whistled by Kaplan? Hard to ignore, very, very difficult to explain away.
I think it is easier to explain "Kaplan" when reffing the Tahs when you consider who they were playing whilst he was the ref. For the majority of the time it was Kiwi sides (as the neutral ref) and they historically have been more successful.
If someone could be bothered I reckon you could find favorable skews with Kiwi refs, because the Tahs were playing Bok sides for the same reasons.
yourmatesam
Desmond Connor (43)
If your team was good enough, the ref wouldn't count!!
Absolutely agree.
Your point about stats is interesting too, with the general perception of the Reds being the more attacking team, and the Crusaders being the more robust defence. Neither team's place in the final can be questioned. But the Tahs scored more tries than the Reds in regular season, and had a better defence. I doubt anyone would seriously think they should be there!
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Absolutely agree.
Your point about stats is interesting too, with the general perception of the Reds being the more attacking team, and the Crusaders being the more robust defence. Neither team's place in the final can be questioned. But the Tahs scored more tries than the Reds in regular season, and had a better defence. I doubt anyone would seriously think they should be there!
The Reds defence was generally very good in 2011. But, just as per the 40 min mark v Blues and near identically v Bulls, it has quite serious lapses in moments of foot-off-the-pedal over-confidence and (eg v Brumbies at home) when the team as a whole is off-colour. So, a quite a nice defence stats pack and graph line overall, but some bad negative spikes along the line.
Cru will have noticed.
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Kiwi bookmakers favouring Cru. And the NZ TAB spokesman leaves little doubt as to his conclusions:
http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/bookies-backing-cantabs-win-4285849
http://tvnz.co.nz/rugby-news/bookies-backing-cantabs-win-4285849
C
chief
Guest
The Reds face a daunting task this Saturday. It is very difficult to see them winning this game. I come to the game without a shred of optimism for a Reds win. Crusaders will just be too good for the Reds, and their scrum will completely annihilate ours.
Our forwards are going to also have a challenge with McCaw, Read and Todd all superstars, I saw on the weekend a lot of turnovers of Reds ball, particularly when support was there for the Reds. It is going to be very difficult I think for the Reds to have the luxury of having clean, crisp service from the rucks and set pieces.
Scrum to be the difference. Crusaders by 5.
Our forwards are going to also have a challenge with McCaw, Read and Todd all superstars, I saw on the weekend a lot of turnovers of Reds ball, particularly when support was there for the Reds. It is going to be very difficult I think for the Reds to have the luxury of having clean, crisp service from the rucks and set pieces.
Scrum to be the difference. Crusaders by 5.
Z
Zeno
Guest
I bookmarked this back in February: Spiro Zavos opining that the Crusaders can't win the Super title.
- Status