Crusaders v Blues
-
@Chris-B. said in Crusaders v Blues:
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Blues:
@Chris-B. and the Blues look to be targetting there too.
Yeah - I think we're fucked this week. Too many holes to fill.
No faith!
Wow. Just wow. We've recruited or are developing some of the depth that Toddy never did. Or perhaps, some of the guys Toddy recruited have just come of age.
Sam Whitelock was huge in that game. So, actually, was Mitch Hunt.
Crotty, Douglas, Samu, Romano, Barrett, Alaalatoa, Crockett, Funnell, Bridge, Bateman, Havili, Drummond. A whole lot of young guys and second stringers.
Three weeks in a row we've come from nowhere to win.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
Pulu was terrible in the second half. Did nothing but appeal for penalties. Another Blues season over.
NZRU must step in now. Provide a cash injection for player retention and sign a top notch coach. Can't keep losing players like Piutau and Luatua and succeed.
The Blues shouldn't get special help. Their poor performances are their own fault.
-
Cracking game! Very predictable 2nd half but much better Blues performance. The midfield out and outside backs were excellent - even Collins!
You have to remember the Crusaders have 7 All Black tight 5 players - it told in the end.
How the fuck did Simon Hickey keep Mitch Hunt on the bench 2 years ago for Auckland - Paul Feeney you are a fucking moron.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@hydro11 The NZRU has no reason to tolerate consistent failure, especially in their biggest market. They're not a science experiment, they're a business.
The Blues do well in general. They just suck against New Zealand teams and the competition punishes them for that. Making the Blues do better will just be at the expense of other New Zealand teams and it is something that wouldn't be afforded to another franchise.
-
@KiwiMurph a player can get a whole lot better in 2 years. Hunt wasn't even starting 10 for Ta$man last year. Feeny had the Auckland backline humming
-
@hydro11 Do you think that the NZRU is a disinterested observer dedicated to objective analysis of provincial organisations?
Their objective is to maximise the performance of NZ Rugby. That means that they have to deliver performance for their largest market.
They run the game. They contract the players. Tolerating continual non-performance in their largest market is negligence. What kind of competent business would operate like that?
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@hydro11 Do you think that the NZRU is a disinterested observer dedicated to objective analysis of provincial organisations?
Their objective is to maximise the performance of NZ Rugby. That means that they have to deliver performance for their largest market.
They run the game. They contract the players. Tolerating continual non-performance in their largest market is negligence. What kind of competent business would operate like that?
In what sort of competition does the national governing body intervene to ensure that their favourite team wins?
It would be like the NRL letting the Storm breach the salary cap because they want to grow the game in Melbourne. It's preposterous.
-
I did not say win the competition. I said ensure competence. You have created a strawman there.
NZ Rugby could not be more different to the NRL. There are many franchises in Sydney, not one. Players are centrally contracted by the NZRU. They have near total control of everything. They cannot abdicate responsibility in their largest market.
If they want to keep losing ground to soccer in Auckland, they are going the right way.
-
Looking at the Crusaders starting line-up:
1 - first choice/AB
2 - first choice/AB
3 - first choice/AB
4 - first choice/AB
5 - first choice/AB
6 - first choice
7 - injury replacement
8 - injury replacement
9 - rotating duo
10 - injury replacement
11 - injury replacement
12 - first choice/AB
13 - injury replacement (and a late one, too)
14 - injury replacement
15 - injury replacementVery heavy at the front, very light at the back.
-
@Stargazer said in Crusaders v Blues:
Looking at the Crusaders starting line-up:
1 - first choice/AB - 28
2 - first choice/AB - 25
3 - first choice/AB - 29
4 - first choice/AB - 23
5 - first choice/AB - 28
6 - first choice - 25
7 - injury replacement - 26
8 - injury replacement - 26
9 - rotating duo - 25
10 - injury replacement - 21
11 - injury replacement - 21
12 - first choice/AB - 28
13 - injury replacement (and a late one, too) - 21
14 - injury replacement - 20
15 - injury replacement - 22Very heavy at the front, very light at the back.
It's even clearer if you look at their age!
-
What's Tom Coventry up to? He's an expert at getting the most out of his packs. Things like maul defense is his bread and butter.
-
-
@muddyriver Hickey still had an average season despite the luxury ride he got that season. Auckland fans were calling for him to be dropped - for example he cost Auckland home advantage in Eden Park loss to Canterbury during regular season. Hunt barely got a run.
-
@muddyriver said in Crusaders v Blues:
@KiwiMurph a player can get a whole lot better in 2 years. Hunt wasn't even starting 10 for Ta$man last year. Feeny had the Auckland backline humming
Hunt was pretty good for Auckland off the bench. I wouldn't hold it against Hunt not starting for Ta$man, Marty Banks is kind of like a superstar at ITM Cup level.
Although our backline was humming, Hickey was atrocious(him and his brother) that year. I've never seen a 10 look so average behind such a dominant pack, especially at ITM Cup level.
(Editors note: dominant, not dominate. Common Fern grammatical error.)
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@Dice said in Crusaders v Blues:
Tom Coventry
New North Harbour coach.
Oh yeah, I know that, I just want him to pop in and give us a helping hand.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
I did not say win the competition. I said ensure competence. You have created a strawman there.
NZ Rugby could not be more different to the NRL. There are many franchises in Sydney, not one. Players are centrally contracted by the NZRU. They have near total control of everything. They cannot abdicate responsibility in their largest market.
If they want to keep losing ground to soccer in Auckland, they are going the right way.
They are competent though. They are probably the 7th or 8th best team in the competition. You haven't backed up your assertion that they aren't competent.
