SupeRugby Final 2011: Queensland Reds V Canterbury Crusaders

[Scotty]

MR,

You have a point. Saders lack of ball handling stopped them scoring more, but the other thing that stopped them scoring more was the defensive game plan. There was one stage where they had a scrum feed (a dominant scrum feed of course) on halfway, pushed the Reds backwards, had all the Reds on the back foot, and Carter kicked it. It was a perfect opportunity for front foot ball for SBW or Fruen.

 

[daz]

My first post after the game. I have been reading the comments in this thread and I was ready to reply to quite a few of them. In the end, I decided to let it go.

I suppose there are those with a more balanced view who can (and have) made some valid points, and dissected the game blow by blow. There are also those who can't help but have a few snide remarks.

But you know what? My team just won the Super Rugby title for 2011. I'm going to bloody well enjoy it. Frankly, those who want to stop me enjoying it can get stuffed.

Ruggo, Sully; Look what our boys did. Fucking CHAMPIONS!

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

MR,

You have a point. Saders lack of ball handling stopped them scoring more, but the other thing that stopped them scoring more was the defensive game plan. There was one stage where they had a scrum feed (a dominant scrum feed of course) on halfway, pushed the Reds backwards, had all the Reds on the back foot, and Carter kicked it. It was a perfect opportunity for front foot ball for SBW or Fruen.

Agree - but that defensive game plan would probably go with the theory that they couldnt' score points - which is what I'm trying to call BS!

Daz - indeed, enjoy it fella.

 

[Zeno]

I still call bullshit on you saying the Crusaders didn't have a way to score points.

OK, I'll walk you through it. They weren't able to score more than one try and one conversion. They had three shots at penalty goals for two successes. They didn't take the drop goal option. That's it; there are no other ways to score.

This problem was obvious after the semi-final. All reports said the Saders blew the Stormers away in every part of the game but their scorecard showed just two tries (one a gift via intercept). Clearly the Crusader game plan was to dominate on the ground, force penalties and take every possible shot at goal. That's smart in a finals match, except if you have an opponent who won't concede many kickable penalties — that is, the Reds. Then you have to score more tries if you want to win, and the Crusader game plan didn't provide for that.

On another day Crusaders would have scored 4 tries.

That's your little fantasy. The last time they bagged four was in Round 11 against the Force. The last time the Reds conceded four was in Round 13 against the Blues.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

OK, I'll walk you through it. They weren't able to score more than one try and one conversion. They had three shots at penalty goals for two successes. They didn't take the drop goal option. That's it; there are no other ways to score.

This problem was obvious after the semi-final. All reports said the Saders blew the Stormers away in every part of the game but their scorecard showed just two tries (one a gift via intercept). Clearly the Crusader game plan was to dominate on the ground, force penalties and take every possible shot at goal. That's smart in a finals match, except if you have an opponent who won't concede many kickable penalties — that is, the Reds. Then you have to score more tries if you want to win, and the Crusader game plan didn't provide for that.

That's your little fantasy. The last time they bagged four was in Round 11 against the Force. The last time the Reds conceded four was in Round 13 against the Blues.

WHOOSH!!!!!!!!!!

Leaving it there.

 

[Zeno]

Smart choice.

 

[Gingerbeer]

That's smart in a finals match, except if you have an opponent who won't concede many kickable penalties — that is, the Reds. Then you have to score more tries if you want to win, and the Crusader game plan didn't provide for that.

I think you'll find that after the end of the regular season (the last time the Reds & Crusaders had played the same number of games this season) the Crusaders had scored MORE tries than the Reds and had let in LESS tries than the Reds. This is despite the Reds getting two cracks at the leakiest defense in the competition (Rebels) and the most anemic attack (Force).

The Crusaders bombed a few tries in the final too - Maitland dropped the ball with no-one between him and the try-line and Thorn didn't pass it when they had about a 5 man overlap. It was poor execution not their game plan which lead to the Crusaders (a) not scoring more tries and (b) not scoring more points generally.

 

[Zeno]

I'm certain it was the game plan. But I won't beat you up over it as well.

 

[Tahfan]

Mate, I think it was just a bad judgement call by QC (Quade Cooper) at the time, DC was already over the line and QC (Quade Cooper) probably just wrongfully assumed he was going to place it down where he was.. Hindsights a wonderful thing, and I'm sure if quade knew Dan was going to run the ball under the post then he would have attempted a tackle.

Watch the replay dude. When QC (Quade Cooper) decides to stop Carter is about 3 or 4 meters from the line. He had an opportunity to at least make an effort before the line and chose to lie down and have his tummy tickled instead. now in all likelihood I do admit he probably would not have stopped the try but (A) he would have made the conversion harder and (B) he would not have looked like a coward who does not want to get his jersey dirty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE2tVppqI_4 = 10 seconds in and pause and you see it.

 

[Jnor]

I'm certain it was the game plan. But I won't beat you up over it as well.

Bit harsh Zeno. You may well be right in your reckoning of the Crusaders game plan but I'm sure they would have already known the Reds concede few penalties and if a few passes had stuck for the Cru they would have been in for at least one or two more tries. You can't really rubbish other opinions because your own inkling is that the Crusaders simply wanted to kick goals (unless you're Todd Blackadder in which case I retract my comments )

 

[Zeno]

Jnor, I haven't rubbished anyone's opinion. I've had mine called 'bullshit' and 'crap', but that's fine. When I said I wasn't going to beat up Gingerbeer over it as well, I simply meant that I wouldn't repeat the same data that shut down MR.

Here's one more data point and I think it's the clincher. After Thorn was ruled 'held up' there was a five-metre scrum. The Reds went down and Lawrence penalised them. It was 7–6 to the Cru with more than 30 minutes left. McCaw didn't call for another scrum (which might have earned a penalty try or a yellow card); he didn't tap and maul it; he didn't kick for a lineout to set up a maul and push for the try. He gave the ball to Carter. The raid had achieved its goal: it earned a penalty shot.

I'm not saying the Crusaders were trying to avoid scoring tries or that Maitland and Thorn deliberately blew their chances (I shouldn't have to spell that out but it's better to do it now than have to come back later and clarify). Of course they would have run in a dozen five-pointers if the Reds had opened up. I'm saying that — as in the game against the Stormers —*they hadn't prepared a game plan that put an emphasis on taking the ball to the tryline. They didn't think they'd need it and when it came to the crunch, they couldn't make it happen.

If you still think the Crusaders had the capacity to score tries at will, please answer this. There were ten minutes left to play when the Reds took their 18–13 lead. The Crusaders needed a try. Why weren't they able to score it then?

 

[Gingerbeer]

In some respects I agree with what you are saying - the Crusaders game plan wasn't focused on necessarily scoring more tries than the Reds. They were prepared to take whatever points were available - as were the Reds. This has been their approach all season, particularly in the finals, and most people would describe this as 'smart rugby'.

The Reds took far more difficult shots at penalties than DC's shot from the scrum penalty you mention - and they took these shots with a much less reliable kicker than DC. I have no doubt that had Horwill been in the same situation as McCaw, he would have told Quade to have a shot at goal.

The Crusaders definitely weren't able to score tries at will - and I don't think anyone has argued this. The Reds defense was quite good all game and when DC crossed for the Crusaders the Reds line had looked quite good when the Cru had kept ball in hand, and it took a good read and a better kick to score.

Both teams, all season, built their game around defense and counter-attacking opportunities to score. This was evident in the final with the Reds two tries coming off counter-attack and the vast majority of Crusaders missed opportunities coming off counter-attack also. In the final both teams struggled to create attacking opportunities (apart from counter-attack) largely because of the way Bryce refereed the breakdown - both teams were allowed to slow the ball down and get turnover ball. For this reason, in the final ten minutes the Crusaders were really up against the odds and the score-line dictated that they couldn't kick it away to play field position. Nevertheless, they did create opportunities to score in the final ten minutes but execution let them down.

Had their line-out been working properly they would have been playing the game at the right end of the field a lot more often, which is the first and most crucial step in being able to scoring points from penalties, field-goals or creating tries from building sustained pressure with ball-in-hand.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Here's one more data point and I think it's the clincher. After Thorn was ruled 'held up' there was a five-metre scrum. The Reds went down and Lawrence penalised them. It was 7–6 to the Cru with more than 30 minutes left. McCaw didn't call for another scrum (which might have earned a penalty try or a yellow card); he didn't tap and maul it; he didn't kick for a lineout to set up a maul and push for the try. He gave the ball to Carter. The raid had achieved its goal: it earned a penalty shot.

I'm not saying the Crusaders were trying to avoid scoring tries or that Maitland and Thorn deliberately blew their chances (I shouldn't have to spell that out but it's better to do it now than have to come back later and clarify). Of course they would have run in a dozen five-pointers if the Reds had opened up. I'm saying that — as in the game against the Stormers —*they hadn't prepared a game plan that put an emphasis on taking the ball to the tryline. They didn't think they'd need it and when it came to the crunch, they couldn't make it happen.

If you had written that to start off with, I would have clicked the "Agree" button and we would have moved on happily. But you didn't, what you stated previously was bullshit, hence I said what I said. They proved they could score points otherways, but their final execution let them down. They broke the line, they setup tries, just some bloody handling errors cost them. Something up until the last post, you seemed somewhat obtuse to.

I, and nobody else, ever ever stated that they could score 4 tries at will. So if your going to brag about "beating me up" and "shutting me down" like some internet tough guy, then I suggest you at least read and acknowledge what I'm arguing, instead of just making stuff up.

 

[daz]

Dear diary.

4:10pm Monday. Still enjoying it....

 

[RedsHappy]

A bit of video and text re Reds 'ticker tape parade' and related in Brisbane today, good vibes all round:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-queensland-reds/story-e6freon6-1226092352700

 

[Zeno]

So if your going to brag about "beating me up" and "shutting me down" like some internet tough guy, then I suggest you at least read and acknowledge what I'm arguing, instead of just making stuff up.

Me, an 'internet tough guy'? I'm not the one who's been throwing around pejoratives like 'bullshit' and 'crap'.

Go back to my post (#713) and read it carefully. Hell, I'll do it for you. I was 'pretty bloody sure' that the Crusaders wouldn't 'score many tries'; at least, not as many as the Reds would. Fact: the Reds scored two and the Crusaders one. That meant that the Crusaders would have to make up the difference with penalty goals; there was no other way to win. Fact: The teams scored/conceded two penalty goals each. As I put it: 'the Reds didn't give away many kickable penalties, so the Cru just didn't have a way to score points.'

Fact: The Crusaders didn't match the Reds' try count. Fact: The Reds avoided conceding many kickable penalties. Fact: When the Crusaders couldn't get parity on the try count, and when the penalty goal count came up square, they had no way to score enough points to win the match.

Why have you been trying to make an argument here? You're trying to 'call bullshit' on the facts.

 

[Sully]

Dear diary.

4:10pm Monday. Still enjoying it....

7:23 pm monday. It's all good Daz

 

[barbarian]

Fact: The Crusaders didn't match the Reds' try count. Fact: The Reds avoided conceding many kickable penalties. Fact: When the Crusaders couldn't get parity on the try count, and when the penalty goal count came up square, they had no way to score enough points to win the match.

As much as I don't really want to weigh in to this argument (I think both sides have valid points), I would suggest the Crusaders had ways to score enough points, but on the night their execution was not good enough to capitalise. They were undoubtedly off their game, and you would think if they were firing on all cylinders then Maitland would've caught that ball, SBW would have caught the bomb and the scoreline could be very different.

 

[Set piece magic]

This saga's script is as dull as transformers 3

 

[ACT Crusader]

As much as I don't really want to weigh in to this argument (I think both sides have valid points), I would suggest the Crusaders had ways to score enough points, but on the night their execution was not good enough to capitalise. They were undoubtedly off their game, and you would think if they were firing on all cylinders then Maitland would've caught that ball, SBW would have caught the bomb and the scoreline could be very different.

And had Brad Thorn passed. That was shocking play by Thorn IMO. Four guys on his outside with one defender that was coming in.

Oh well, shoulda coulda woulda....