Crusaders vs B&I Lions
-
@MajorRage It looked like the Lions were off side a lot of the time - the line speed was just a bit too quick and seemed wrong. It was mentioned above that they were in front of the kicker on occasion too. That was my major complaint about the ref (although the blame really rests with the AR's).
It was up to the Crusaders to adapt and yes chipping behind would have been a good remedy. BB being the master of chip and chase will have the Lions thinking a bit more in the tests. -
@kev said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Duluth said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@gt12 said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Plus the 9,10, 12 were just out of their depth.
9, 10, 12
You're right. Don't recall seeing the 8 on the field ...
-
@MiketheSnow said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Tough conditions made for a tough watch.
You mean the lack of wind, lack of rain with only a light sprinkling of dew?
-
@booboo I thought that if you created an imaginary line to extend the height of the uprights then that Farrell penalty would have hit the posts, therefore missed.
Speaking of refs, Gardner is in charge of the Highlanders game so we'll see if his interpretation differs from Raynal.
The full list is:
June 3 - Provincial Union XV (Angus Gardner, Australia)
June 7 - Blues (Pascal Gauzere, France)
June 10 - Crusaders (Mathieu Raynal, France)
June 13 - Highlanders (Angus Gardner)
June 17 - NZ Maori (Jaco Peyper, South Africa)
June 20 - Chiefs (Jerome Garces, France)
June 24 - New Zealand (Jaco Peyper)
June 27 - Hurricanes (Romain Poite, France)
July 1 - New Zealand (Jerome Garces)
July 8 - New Zealand (Romain Poite) -
@booboo said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@MiketheSnow said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Tough conditions made for a tough watch.
You mean the lack of wind, lack of rain with only a light sprinkling of dew?
Well half the players must have been playing in plimsoles then with duck fat lathered on their hands
-
New Zealand's likely starting hooker in the three-Test series, Taylor got a first-hand look at what makes the Lions' set piece tick when his Crusaders were beaten 12-3 by the tourists in Christchurch. It was a far cry from he and his all-All Blacks tight five are used to in Super Rugby. But it was effective, and that has Taylor on edge. The biggest problem was the scrum, normally a Crusaders weapon, where they were penalised heavily by French referee Mathieu Raynal. That penalty count helped the Lions dominate possession and territory and left the Crusaders without a reliable platform. Taylor says it took half a game to adjust to the tourists' tactics of "changing the picture", which in front-row parlance means varying the size of the space between both packs at every scrum. "I suppose we didn't get the rub of the green but we had to adapt to what was happening with the ref and what their tactics were," he said. "They would change the picture, which was really smart and we probably weren't prepared for that. "The All Blacks, we'll have to be a bit smarter." Taylor says having played under Raynal will be of benefit, with two other French whistleblowers - Jerome Garces and Romain Poite - to control the second and third Tests. As well as the scrum rulings, Raynal also let the Lions get away with some unusual lineout antics. Explaining why the Crusaders' lineout was malfunctioning early on, Taylor says the touring forwards would shout over the home team's calls, creating confusion. And on their own throw, the Lions routinely go into a huddle, slowing down play. "We can't do anything about that unless the ref speeds it up. I don't think they're breaking any rules," Taylor said. "And we've seen over the last few weeks, they like to make a bit of noise and try to confuse us." -
@Stargazer said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Taylor says it took half a game to adjust to the tourists' tactics of "changing the picture", which in front-row parlance means varying the size of the space between both packs at every scrum.
Half a game?
TBH I was surprised at how slow, almost to the point they failed to adapt to the ref at all at scrum time and the fact they didnt sort the call before getting to the lineout to combat the Lions calling over them?
One of the few completed scrums for the Crusaders resulted in Goodhue's big break, which I guess bodes well if any other team can get thier scrum functioning.
-
If I were the Lions ...
... I'd be happy with:
- the win
- the creation of try scoring opportunities
- it was the Crusaders
- they'll get better
... I'd be unhappy with:
- lack of tries actually scored, especially those that they had to try really really hard not to score
- the score was very close (if probably flattering the home side)
- they got the rub of the officiating green
- the Crusaders were bloody awful in how many mistakes they made (in execution and in decision making)
- given the above two points they weren't further in front
Interesting the reaction to the win, like they'd won the series, but understandable given the impact on the tour. Possibly gives them a boost and shows a developing team spirit.
-
We can complain about the Frenchman all day but I don't think he's the reason we lost.
Quite simply we cracked under pressure.
Havilii, Bridge, Mouaga and hall were overawed and played badly.
Robertson needs to realise that Drummond is our best 9 and should start every game. Crotty will make a huge difference at 12.
At the game it didn't look to me that the lions were offside any more than we were. Their Rush defense really pressured Mouaga and havilii. Hope we learn a lot from that, because I know the Chiefs, Canes and Highlamders will have. We also lost the breakdown battle pretty comprehensively ... Wynn jones and whoever the other lock was outplayed Whitleock and Romano convincingly.
Matt Todd and Taufua ripped into everything, but with a tight 5 getting beaten up were always in for a long night.
As I said, good lesson for Robertson etc. that game really showed our weak points. Hope we learn from it quickly.
-
Good game to watch if only to see an improvement in the Lions. Even Sexton managed to put himself back in the reckoning for selection.
Surprised that Crusaders given their record this season didn't get over for at least one score. But Farrell snr earned his corn with a great defensive effort. Sorry for Davies and Hogg with both having just got started into the game. Both under HIA protocols which means a minimum 6-day layoff so they won't be involved in Tues match and low chance for the Maori match.
The Murray/Sexton/Farrell combo might be worth looking at again with maybe a more conventional 13 such as Joseph, Daly or even Henshaw.
Not sure a penetrating back three has been uncovered yet. And let's face it, penalty kicks ain't gonna cut it come test time.
-
@SammyC said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Quite simply we cracked under pressure.
This.
At the game it didn't look to me that the lions were offside any more than we were. Their Rush defense really pressured Mo'unga and Havilii.
and this too.
We can complain about the Frenchman all day but I don't think he's the reason we lost.
However, I don't the ref called the Lions on their being off, did he? Maybe once?
I also think that he started the game looking to assert his authority, and during those first 15 minutes things pretty clearly went against the Saders. After that, it was really about their poor play.
The more I think about the game, the more I think that Murray is going to be the key player. We know they have a good 8, and we know they'll kick their goals. His kicking and game control from 9 was outstanding yesterday. Was he MOTM?
-
@SammyC said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
At the game it didn't look to me that the lions were offside any more than we were.
Maybe just camera angles on tele then- I paused it a few times and it was always close but did appear that they were just ahead of where they should have been, whether it be the kicker, back of the ruck, etc. Just pushing the boundaries and they got away with it. Crusaders were probably doing it as well when they realised that it was allowed. If it ain't policed you do whatever you can to win.
It is still shit officiating though and does ruin a contest when backs get no space. There are ways to combat it as already mentioned and all of our other teams could have more imaginative backlines than that.
-
Well, thoughts after sleeping on it and reading through the thread this morning.
Both sides created engouh chances to win the game. In that sense, whichever side lost would be kicking themselves and looking at 'what might have been'. What must be most worrying for the Lions is that both in that game and the Blues game they got a huge amount of possession and territory, and couldn't convert it into points. They are not going to get that dominance in the Tests, so in attack things need to change in the next 13 days or they will struggle to live with the ABs.
Ref was frankly bizarre, but didn't take away the chance for teh Crusaders to win. If Bridge could catch a ball that sits up, and if Mounga could outrun a flanker, that's probably the game right there. That said, a ref like that probably led to a few cantabs putting their feet through the screen they were watching on.
For the Lions, they kind of brought what you'd expect. An outstanding forward pack that got parity all over the park, and arguably dominance in a number of areas. THey started with ambition in the backs, and Farrell is a lock for the tests you'd think. That said, I didn't think they kept that up through the game.
For Farrell (and me, who initially thought he was hard done by), World Rugby define a successful kick as:
Goal: A player scores a goal by kicking the ball over an opponents’ crossbar and between the goal posts from the field of play, by a place kick or drop-kick.Based on that, it appears that if any part of the ball crosses the top of the post, it's 'no goal'. Would like to re-watch Stephen Donald's kick after reading that
For the Crusaders, I think the backs and loosies showed that htey are not as good when they don't get the armchair ride from the tight five. By contrast, the Blues were weaker in the forwards, but (like the Aussies) were used to that
and can live with it. Overall, they will be disappointed with their game - had enough chances, but couldn't grab them.All in all, a very tight game. Lions must be worried that they have 2 tries after 3 games, despite the win. Their defence is darn good though, they have probably the best line speed I've seen for a long time. Hard to break down, but you can bet the ABs brains trust will be looking hard at it.
Well done the Lions, and roll on the tour
-
If all players rush up in a line together there is a perception that they aren't offside, even if they are.
It's when one or two players are ahead of the rest that the offside looks really obvious to the officials. Franks is a good example as he is often very lazy getting back onside.
Food for thought for Hansen and Foster though as we've always known how the Andy Farrell defence would play.
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@booboo I thought that if you created an imaginary line to extend the height of the uprights then that Farrell penalty would have hit the posts, therefore missed.
Speaking of refs, Gardner is in charge of the Highlanders game so we'll see if his interpretation differs from Raynal.
The full list is:
June 3 - Provincial Union XV (Angus Gardner, Australia)
June 7 - Blues (Pascal Gauzere, France)
June 10 - Crusaders (Mathieu Raynal, France)
June 13 - Highlanders (Angus Gardner)
June 17 - NZ Maori (Jaco Peyper, South Africa)
June 20 - Chiefs (Jerome Garces, France)
June 24 - New Zealand (Jaco Peyper)
June 27 - Hurricanes (Romain Poite, France)
July 1 - New Zealand (Jerome Garces)
July 8 - New Zealand (Romain Poite)You wouldn't think this was the premier rugby tour of the year with that list of refs (Gardiner aside).
-
@Nepia Are you wanting Barnes?
No one would complain if Owens was involved but when you exclude refs from the 4 Lions' countries and NZ you are left with France, SA and Aust. The refs chosen were entirely predictable - refer to who officiated in the playoffs at the 2015 RWC.
I would have liked Gardner in one of the tests but that wasn't to be.
In 2005 NZ refs (Walsh, Honiss, Deaker) were used in the non-test games and there was criticism of them from the Lions.
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Nepia Are you wanting Barnes?
No one would complain if Owens was involved but when you exclude refs from the 4 Lions' countries and NZ you are left with France, SA and Aust. The refs chosen were entirely predictable - refer to who officiated in the playoffs at the 2015 RWC.
I would have liked Gardner in one of the tests but that wasn't to be.
In 2005 NZ refs (Walsh, Honiss, Deaker) were used in the non-test games and there was criticism of them from the Lions.
I actually think Barnes would be an improvement over the Frenchies, I don't know if it is the language issue but I find a certain randomness to the way the French referees ref matches. Gardner and Peyper having a test each would be preferable to me, but alas that's not the way they decided to go.
-
