Crusaders vs B&I Lions
-
@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.
-
-
@Donsteppa said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Still feeling flat about that game. Pre tour I figured that was the best chance of a win outside of the AB's/NZM. After the Blues game I was looking forward to seeing a Super Rugby side cut loose.
At the risk of being a 'hater crawling out of the woodwork', that still feels bloody disappointing from the Crusaders... and it looked like Sam Whitelock felt similarly in his post match interview.
**If there's any plus side, several All Blacks have had any possible slight hint of complacency for the Test series beaten out of them...
This a thousand times.
FWIW I don't think BIL give a flying rats whether they score tries or not - Warburton clearly on record saying he doesn't care if they win tests by a single penalty 3-0. It is plain the Lions are here to win and win only.
Hansen and co better have a decent plan A, B, C,, D & E as I after that dire Crusaders performance I don't want any underdone/injured players taking the field. -
Ha - yeah - bloody ref. And what about that dirty Irish halfback taking out that Scotsman. ANY other game this year and that's an instant red card.
In the words of Fergie McCormick (from last night's grandstand), "Fuck, that's at least as bad as what I did to Sid Nomis! And that carried on for months...."
On another point - that dive through the ruck by Codie Taylor to "score" was a terrible option. If a try is scored in the ruck but no-one sees it scored... I could see the base of both posts crying out at Bryn Hall to have a quick dart and score against them!
-
@Chris-B. said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
On another point - that dive through the ruck by Codie Taylor to "score" was a terrible option. If a try is scored in the ruck but no-one sees it scored... I could see the base of both posts crying out at Bryn Hall to have a quick dart and score against them!
Half of the people at the ground were screaming the exact same thing Chris, the bloody post was right there.
I've been disappointed with Taylor this year. He's been around for a few years now and pre season I expected him to be a dominant player. He's had the odd good game but is far too inconsistent.
I actually rate funnel ahead of him based on this years form. Was speaking to a mate of bens a couple of weeks ago, apparently he's loving the Robertson fitness regime. Much more running focussed, whereas Blackadder etc were obsessed with bulking him up. He definitely looks fitter than previous years.
-
All in All , this game was good for Lions as well as the ABs brains trust I feel,
They get some confidence ,
And We have seen their blueprint , it wont vary too much from that , its what they do best
-
@Tregaskis said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Tim Yes, it's true. It was a dominant defensive display.
Must be. Farrell has worked with England and Ireland. Only welsh players were mentioned as not being familiar with his defensive systems.
Systems? Plural? When did everyone rush forward become a system?
@kiwiinmelb said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
All in All , this game was good for Lions as well as the ABs brains trust I feel,
They get some confidence ,
And We have seen their blueprint , it wont vary too much from that , its what they do best
And a number of All Blacks now have a decent understanding of what's required to beat them. And the coaches will have cemented in their mind that at Test level you require wingers who can catch and five-eighths with variable kicking games.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
And the coaches will have cemented in their mind that at Test level you require wingers who can catch and five-eighths with variable kicking games.
And you need players throughout the team who can make a whole in the middle of an effective tackle line. The Crusaders found that they couldn't take enough people into the rucks to create space out wide. When the Lions have been opened up it has been down the middle of the park, not out wide.
That's why Ardie Savea and Cane are more suited to what we need than Todd, who can't take the ball up in traffic half as effectively as them. We don't need a fetcher, as there will be precious little ball on the ground for him to attack.
And why SBW is a key player.
I don't think Julian Savea will enjoy the Lions, unless they are stupid and mark him with a little player -- he'll get turned by the kicks and will be unable to steamroll his way out of trouble. I'd favour Naholo.
