liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
Is that 1 from 2 in the drop goal decider after extra time?
SupeRugby Final 2011: Queensland Reds V Canterbury Crusaders
- Thread starter Set piece magic
- Start date
- Status
Is that 1 from 2 in the drop goal decider after extra time?
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Boys, do not allow yourself to be sucked into these distractions from watching the final. I would be very disappointed in every last one of you if a female member of the species were to deviate you from what you all know is your righteous and true path on the weekend. The game is on at 5:30PM Perth time, I believe. I will be making the necessary arrangements to watch it on the Interwebs or television. I expect no less of any of you 
PS I have an engagement party to attend on the same night, but the male half of the couple is also a rugby fan. The necessary arrangements will be made viz a viz watching said sporting spectacle.
PS I have an engagement party to attend on the same night, but the male half of the couple is also a rugby fan. The necessary arrangements will be made viz a viz watching said sporting spectacle.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
I think the odss have no reflection on what the actual chance of winning, they are designed to ensure the bookie makes money. The bookies know that people think that the Crusaders will win. If they take $10,000 on them to win they have to off set this with at least $10,000 dollars on the Reds. They then will set the odds to a point where they will encourage people to place a bet. This is why on some occasions the odds are very skewed- I think the Brumbies were about $7 against the reds a few weeks ago. There is no way the Brumbies were ever that far of an outside chance of winning, the odds simply reflected an attempt to recover money in case the Reds won. This is demonstrated if you look at foreign markets, you can have a different team as favourite in the same game as the locals get behind their own team and the bookies try to encourage bets on visiting teams
There is probably a little amount of the odds that makes the bookie money about 14c in a head to head bet (1.86 to the dollar) but the rest is to cover losses.
Brumbies Guy
John Solomon (38)
Australia Odds, Crusaders $1.55 - http://www.tab.com.au/Sports/Bettin...ContestDate=2011-07-09T00:00:00&MeetingType=9
New Zealand Odds, Crusaders $1.52 - https://www.tab.co.nz/sport/#20
South Africa Odds, Crusaders $1.57 - https://www.bettingworld.co.za/
UK Odds (Coral), Crusaders $1.57 - http://sports.coral.co.uk/sport/en#/drilldown/type/10006/Super-15
It seems pretty universal to me.
D
daz
Guest
If any bookie had bothered to ask me, they would have been given a very different answer.....
Athilnaur
Arch Winning (36)
Seems to me the beauty of the Reds game is they don't play like the Stormers. Their 'weakness' can result in an over-extension of the opposition as they push up, resulting in a devastating counter-attack. Naturally the Saders know that.
It is going to be a very interesting game. My money is on the Reds because I think the Saders will be opt for conservative rugby and it will backfire, but neither side is immune to losing.
One thing is certain, they won't lie down easily, they are both class teams who have shown that greatest of champion qualities; the ability to win in the final 20 due to sheer will.
It is going to be a very interesting game. My money is on the Reds because I think the Saders will be opt for conservative rugby and it will backfire, but neither side is immune to losing.
One thing is certain, they won't lie down easily, they are both class teams who have shown that greatest of champion qualities; the ability to win in the final 20 due to sheer will.
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
Have a look at the start of each season on the odds to win the whole comp, it usually shows some differences.
In your example it looks like the Crusaders are getting more support from home compared to Australia hense the shorter odds.
It may not always work but if you are really bored have a look sometime
BrumbiesPolynesian
Fred Wood (13)
Money would have to be on the Crusaders...big games call for big players to stand up....and its going to be a true test how far Quade Cooper has come. He played well against Auckland purely because Auckland gave him so much time and space...it will be a different story with the line speed and in your face defense of the Crusaders. I dont think they will go conservative at all, i think they are really going to test the defense of Tapuai and Faiagaa...SBW many not have fired against them when they met in round robin, but watch him pull out the big guns...same with McCaw, Read, Franks, Thorn and most of all.....Carter...Its going to be interesting....but i dont think the Reds will be able to foot it....
C
chriscullen
Guest
Anyone know where/ when the crusaders are training?
Has anyone tipped a draw yet? More bang for your buck if we get extra time.
Has anyone tipped a draw yet? More bang for your buck if we get extra time.
Groucho
Greg Davis (50)
Hmm. We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. If a bookie is continually out by a few % to 'encourage punters to bet' then he is potentially offering those punters a greater edge than casinos enjoy, and will hemorrhage money over time. Bookies don't want people to bet at favourable odds (an 'overlay') he wants them to bet at unfavourable odds: precisely the opposite of what you're describing.
Consider an example. The true price for a team is 2:1, meaning that they can be expected to win 1 in 3 times. Imagine a bookie sets odds of 3:1 to 'attract' punters to the less favoured team. Imagine I place a bet of $1 for three consecutive games, and my team wins once, as expected. My outlay is $3. My return is $4. That bookie has made a mistake. Bookies simply can't afford to do this. Their objective in framing a market is to underlay every bet.
It doesn't matter how long the odds are, the principle is the same. Professional punters (and amateurs, using a variety of online odds searching and analysis engines) are always on the lookout for precisely these kinds of bookmaking errors.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
I think the Cru will be favourites and probably rightly. Many of them have been here before and know what is required to win a title. They also have a very powerful set piece in the scrum and line out, which shouldn't be underestimated. They'll get a good supply of quality ball and that backline will make full use of it. I think the Reds are going to have to play to the absolute limits of their abilities to beat these guys. I have absolutely no doubt that they can, however. They've beaten nearly every other contender this year and are playing at home, which is a big plus.
I think team discipline is going to be very important, as you don't want to be giving away points unnecessarily. The Reds will also have to be very accurate on attack, because they can't expect to get the kind of latitude from Cru as they did last week with less than 50% of the pill. They don't really have to change they they play, it got them this far after all. I reckon a big thing for the Reds will be not to be overawed by the situation or the opposition, but they've not shown much sign of it this season. If they have confidence in their system and execute it well, I think they can win.
I think team discipline is going to be very important, as you don't want to be giving away points unnecessarily. The Reds will also have to be very accurate on attack, because they can't expect to get the kind of latitude from Cru as they did last week with less than 50% of the pill. They don't really have to change they they play, it got them this far after all. I reckon a big thing for the Reds will be not to be overawed by the situation or the opposition, but they've not shown much sign of it this season. If they have confidence in their system and execute it well, I think they can win.
Brumbies Guy
John Solomon (38)
[video=youtube;yUjfaPRnheE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUjfaPRnheE&feature=share[/video]
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
I think the Crusaders will make the mistake of focusing on Cooper too much. After the blinder he had last week he will be in the front of their minds, but he has proven numerous times this year he can hang back and play the understated role allowing the guys around him to do the damage.
ACT Crusader
Jim Lenehan (48)
I'd be interested in what you base that on Charger?
From what I've seen of Blackadder's tactics in defense this year is that they've remained fairly consistent against all teams. Hit the line hard at the player with ball in hand (whether it be a fattie or a back), one high and one low, put pressure on the collisions but not directly on the halfback, allowing the ball to be cleared and then rushing the line again. Blackadder hasn't shown an inclination to target individuals despite the objective to cut space out for the 10/12 channel, so I can't see him changing what has been a fairly successful formula to date.
In attack the tactics have changed throughout and IMO that has been more about personnel. The last time we played the Reds for example, Carter did alot of fielding the kicks because without Dagg and Maitland, we didn't have the firepower to counter attack from the back and put pressure on. We tried to play a more traditional field position game through kicking rather than ball in hand.
T
tranquility
Guest
Maitland is a superstar in the making. Freak talent.
armatt
Fred Wood (13)
QC (Quade Cooper) a Gentleman
Not meaning to disparage your views MR but my two cents, if I may.
I've 'known' QC (Quade Cooper) for a few years now - did analytics for Churchie when he was there and now through video analysis work with the Reds. I say 'known' in that it was 'know the face' sort of thing at Churchie - I didn't work directly with the players.
Despite this, he made the effort in my early days at the QRU to welcome, introduce etc. He didn't have to do that at all (as I said, we didn't have a prior friendship per se) but did and now will always have a yarn or a joke etc and make a genuine effort to engage.
Yes, he has done some silly things but he's a great bloke and can just make some poor decisions on the spot - I've no doubt he'll continue to mature. There are plenty worse folks running around.
Not meaning to disparage your views MR but my two cents, if I may.
I've 'known' QC (Quade Cooper) for a few years now - did analytics for Churchie when he was there and now through video analysis work with the Reds. I say 'known' in that it was 'know the face' sort of thing at Churchie - I didn't work directly with the players.
Despite this, he made the effort in my early days at the QRU to welcome, introduce etc. He didn't have to do that at all (as I said, we didn't have a prior friendship per se) but did and now will always have a yarn or a joke etc and make a genuine effort to engage.
Yes, he has done some silly things but he's a great bloke and can just make some poor decisions on the spot - I've no doubt he'll continue to mature. There are plenty worse folks running around.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
And the cousin of Quade Cooper. There must have been some good rugby genes back in the bloodlines somewhere.
crangs81
Larry Dwyer (12)
lol. Both sites are clearly guilty of both from what i can see
on the actual game, I cant call it at the moment but if i had to, I'd say Crusaders by 1-12. Can't see the Crusaders making as many mistakes as the Blues did on the weekend and giving the Queensland backs as much room to move.
- Status