Crusaders vs B&I Lions
-
Two tries from 240 minutes of rugby hardly seems the sort of return to generate excitement, but the British and Irish Lions’ attacking game is starting to click.
After a run of 14 straight Super Rugby victories, the Crusaders understandably began this match as two-point favourites with the bookies. When Owen Farrell booted the ball into the crowd to end the game, a 12-3 scoreline flattered the hosts.
Besides suffocating their opponents in phase-play, the Lions comfortably edged the scrum exchanges and derailed the Crusaders’ lineout. With props Joe Moody and Owen Franks and lock Sam Whitelock likely to start the first Test for New Zealand, the set piece would have brought a significant psychological boost.
Perhaps even more impressively, the Lions made nine clean breaks to the Crusaders’ three. Composure in the 22 was sorely lacking, yet the tourists consistently created openings. Conor Murray, Owen Farrell and replacement Jonathan Sexton were central to the incisiveness. Here is a closer look at how the three combined.
Urgency from the off
Whereas the Lions seemed soporific and reactive in Whangarei, they seized impetus here. Note Conor Murray’s starting position from this lineout, in the five-metre channel:
Lions_analysis
As the throw comes in, referee Mathieu Raynal awards the Lions a free-kick, ruling that the Crusaders have closed the gap between the sides. Owen Farrell begins 10 metres back in the defensive line:Lions_analysis
Clearly, a free-kick means the Lions would give away the lineout if they kicked the ball to touch. With this in mind, Farrell gets hold of the ball, glances across to Murray…Lions_analysis
…and takes a quick tap:Lions_analysis
He feeds Murray…Lions_analysis
…who draws Crusaders wing Seta Tamanivalu and chips ahead: -
@Pot-Hale said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Besides suffocating their opponents in phase-play, the Lions comfortably edged the scrum exchanges and derailed the Crusaders’ lineout. With props Joe Moody and Owen Franks and lock Sam Whitelock likely to start the first Test for New Zealand, the set piece would have brought a significant psychological boost.
Hmmm...an interesting take on what happened.
From what I recall most of the scrum penalties to the Lions were on engagement. When Raynal actually let the teams scrummage it was a different story. There was one scrum when the Crusaders absolutely demolished the Lions, leading to the pushing and shoving.
-
Yeah we are back to rugby cliches again. The NH always feel they have the better packs and feel this game justified that theory.
There were a number of technical scrum infringements awarded against the Crusaders. By the letter of the law the ref might have been correct.
But when moody popped furlong and the Crusaders got pinged for wheeling it was totally the wrong call imo
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Pot-Hale said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Besides suffocating their opponents in phase-play, the Lions comfortably edged the scrum exchanges and derailed the Crusaders’ lineout. With props Joe Moody and Owen Franks and lock Sam Whitelock likely to start the first Test for New Zealand, the set piece would have brought a significant psychological boost.
Hmmm...an interesting take on what happened.
From what I recall most of the scrum penalties to the Lions were on engagement. When Raynal actually let the teams scrummage it was a different story. There was one scrum when the Crusaders absolutely demolished the Lions, leading to the pushing and shoving.
Nigel Yalden is pretty balanced. Check out his comments on the scrums at about 11m30s (interview starts at around 11min)
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2017.06.11-16.00.00-S.mp3Rest of the interview here:
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2017.06.11-14.15.00-S.mp3 -
I wasn't at all surprised by the result. I thought it was a much stronger Lions team and that they would do better against a more structured NH type team in the Crusaders than the off the cuff Blues. I mean most of the time the Blues have no idea what they are about to do so what chance the opposition.
Crusaders looked very average but then they were made to do so. The most disappointing aspect of the Crusaders play was their lack of intelligence. The Lions defence negated the attacking game the Crusaders wanted to employ but the home team response was if it ain't working keep trying coz sooner or later it will succeed. Bone headed.
The ref seemed to fall for the "everyone says the Lions scrum is going to be much better than the local powderpuffs - so if they are getting monstered the Crusaders must be cheating" line. PENALTY!
-
Plenty of Crusaders showed that they were no ready to take the next step. Havili is not a center, Mo'unga, looked shell shocked, Jordan Taufua found that his dominance didn't translate.
I thought the Ref ruined what could have been a decent spectacle. His game management was shitty when the whistle went no one had any idea what he was going to call. He would say just advantage. No idea if its penalty or knock on. Rarely called when it was over. I think at the scrum time he protected the Lions and I don't know why. Normally a team being dominated doesn't get that sort of protection.
I know some people don't like Refs that coach but it has one advantage it lets the game flow a bit more it allows players to adapt while the game is in progress having to wait till after the whistle has been blown then wondering what the hell is going on is just shitty as a spectacle.
Oh and why the fuck kick the ball from in front of the posts to the sideline? It was arrogant and a shit call from Sam. You put that over your playing the Lions not the western force.
-
@dogmeat said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
I wasn't at all surprised by the result. I thought it was a much stronger Lions team and that they would do better against a more structured NH type team in the Crusaders than the off the cuff Blues. I mean most of the time the Blues have no idea what they are about to do so what chance the opposition.
Crusaders looked very average but then they were made to do so. The most disappointing aspect of the Crusaders play was their lack of intelligence. The Lions defence negated the attacking game the Crusaders wanted to employ but the home team response was if it ain't working keep trying coz sooner or later it will succeed. Bone headed.
The ref seemed to fall for the "everyone says the Lions scrum is going to be much better than the local powderpuffs - so if they are getting monstered the Crusaders must be cheating" line. PENALTY!
I think you have the gist of it bang on @dogmeat
It was a stifling NH way of playing for sure but that is what they do and should be expected.
I have often said that the way to make things difficult for NZ teams is to rush D and kick the ball out. At Super level this is not so much a winning recipe as execution is not always perfect. FFS the Crusaders played the very same game as the Lions against the Hurricanes. The tactic works, but only if you are very accurate at what you do (which the Lions were).
Yes, the non policing of the offside line gave the Lions style an advantage but the ref team was even handed ( it just suited the Lions more in their gameplan). I hate the way refs allow space to be closed down by allowing a headstart for defences but you can't really complain if you are doing it too.
There are a few of ways of dealing with the rush D. One is obviously to get a roll on up front before sending the ball out quickly when the opportunity arises. This can be negated by opposition forwards that have suckled on this style all their life.
Another is to do what Cruden does and gets maligned for at times and that is to keep mixing things up from 10 with dink kicks behind the rush. They don't always come of but can make the defence think twice about rushing in unison if the 10 is keeping them guessing. I didn't see Mounga try this approach which showed a bit of green.
There is one other way which may or may not work depending on the ref team. That is to be clearly and obviously onside yourself and moan about the opposition. That would be captain's call based on how he saw the ref team working and whether it was worth the risk for the potential reward.The scrum calls were frustrating and you must adapt to the ref.It is not a good reffing performance though if your approach takes one side by surprise. Surely the ref should prepare for a game as well and make it very clear before the match what his expectations are if they are different to what he views in other games. eg if a ref watches other games involving the teams he is about to ref and sees different things to the refs in those games he should, IMO, make it clear that they will be getting a different view pre-game. This goes for both sides just as SH refs tend not to allow teams to milk scrum penalties by holding the ball at the back.
I'm sure others have made the same comment earlier in the thread but SWs performance as a captain was pretty weak. -
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
-
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@mooshld As someone who would have seen Raynal ref more than most, was this how it normally is for him (scrums and lack of communication)?
Well I have only seen him once I think in the top 14 and I seem to remember him doing a bit more talking then he did on the weekend. You could make the argument that hes more comfortable in French but he was not like this in Chicago either so who knows bad day at the office for him maybe.
-
@mooshld said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
... Jordan Taufua found that his dominance didn't translate.
I know some people don't like Refs that coach...
...
Oh and why the fuck kick the ball from in front of the posts to the sideline? It was arrogant and a shit call from Sam. You put that over your playing the Lions not the western force.
Not picking on you @mooshld but what's with the fascination with Jordan Taufua. Seems to be everywhere.
He's the shorter 2017 version of Elliot Dixon or Jarrad Hoeata for me. Full of bluff and bluster but never going to be physical enough at Test level.
And the next point I have cherry picked ...
... i agree entirely, but I won't call it "coaching". That's lazy clickbait. Call it "communicating".Third...
...yep. seriously strange call. -
@booboo said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@mooshld said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
... Jordan Taufua found that his dominance didn't translate.
I know some people don't like Refs that coach...
...
Oh and why the fuck kick the ball from in front of the posts to the sideline? It was arrogant and a shit call from Sam. You put that over your playing the Lions not the western force.
Not picking on you @mooshld but what's with the fascination with Jordan Taufua. Seems to be everywhere.
He's the shorter 2017 version of Elliot Dixon or Jarrad Hoeata for me. Full of bluff and bluster but never going to be physical enough at Test level.
And the next point I have cherry picked ...
... i agree entirely, but I won't call it "coaching". That's lazy clickbait. Call it "communicating".Third...
...yep. seriously strange call.You can't argue that Taufua doesn't make meters at super level, plenty of other Cantabs have been saying hes ready to take the next step. Not on the weekends evidence. So I think we agree there.
-
-
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
For me that's it in a nutshell. The laws are there but are open to interpretation. This is a known known and coaches really ought to be on top of stuff like this. Although it is somewhat different, the stuff the Eyeties pulled on England in the 6N falls into such a category. Should the ref have pre-warned England on how he would interpret the ruck area? To my mind the answer is "No". It is up to the coaching staff and then the players on the field. England really should have cottoned on a whole lot quicker and just bashed it up the guts but the bitched and moaned to the ref. FFS how much do these guys get paid? Do your research, then do your fuckin job.
-
I find it a bit of a no-brainer that players who have never been exposed to rugby "at the next level" (aka test rugby) will struggle in a match against a test team that plays with the intensity of test rugby. That doesn't make those players bad, it just means that they are not ready to play for the All Blacks. Jordie Barrett wasn't ready last year either, but he got the opportunity to have an apprenticeship with the ABs during the EOYT, and so did Fifita. Similarly, Ardie Savea, Jeff To'omaga-Allen, Tom Franklin and Melani Nanai have spent time training with the All Blacks, learning from the best. For the latter three, that hasn't resulted in a call-up (yet), presumably because the coaches have watched them closely during that time and later during Super Rugby and concluded that they didn't have what it takes to be an All Black (yet).
I can think of a bunch of guys, who have shown a lot of talent the last year, or two years, to be deserving of a similar opportunity. I myself have never suggested that players like Mo'unga or Taufua (or Havili for that matter) should play for the ABs this year, but I think it would be a good idea that they (and also players like, for example, Riccitelli, Goodes, Fatialofa, and maybe also Stevenson, Buckman and a couple of others) are exposed to the AB environment, get an opportunity to learn, also giving the coaching team the opportunity to watch them more closely. To me, this makes the whole discussion of having an All Blacks Development team (whether you call them New Zealand 'A', Junior All Blacks, New Zealand Barbarians or something else) relevant. It would be hugely beneficial for the development of new All Blacks if a team like that could play in the Pacific Nations Cup again, or a tournament in parallel to the Rugby Championship (that would make great curtain raisers). The limit on the eligibility for the Maori All Blacks team makes it unsuitable as a development team for the ABs, but at the moment they are being used as such for Maori players. For some reason, NZR are not investing in a development team and instead, some of these players are called in as injury cover (Akira, Goodhue, Fifita). I seriously hope some more/other players get that opportunity later this year, because I think it can make that step up from SR level to test level easier for players and more efficient/useful for the coaching staff. Not all players can make that step up as easily as someone like Scott Barrett last year, who according to Hansen fitted in as if he had been in the AB environment for years.
-
-
@pakman said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Not a great advert for Sam W as future AB skip.
As @Stargazer says. maybe not at the moment. He isn't ready.
I wouldn't judge him on that though. I would judge him on whether he shows learnings from what happened. -
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
For me that's it in a nutshell. The laws are there but are open to interpretation. This is a known known and coaches really ought to be on top of stuff like this. Although it is somewhat different, the stuff the Eyeties pulled on England in the 6N falls into such a category. Should the ref have pre-warned England on how he would interpret the ruck area? To my mind the answer is "No". It is up to the coaching staff and then the players on the field. England really should have cottoned on a whole lot quicker and just bashed it up the guts but the bitched and moaned to the ref. FFS how much do these guys get paid? Do your research, then do your fuckin job.
Not the best comparison. What Italy were doing has nothing to do with interpretation. They weren't being 'tricky' they were simply playing in an unorthodox manner within the laws. The laws clearly state when an offside line is formed.
With the scrums the other night my understanding is that the ref was penalising the Crusaders front row for making too much contact (leaning) before his call to set. The laws do not mention the amount of contact allowable at all. The describe other things that shouldn't be done such as head to head contact and how things should be done (ear to ear set up). Most refs these guys have had in their careers have never told them that they can't 'lean' only that they can't push (which is written in the laws). Leaning doesn't gain any advantage it is a way of ensuring good position and a stable engagement. For this ref to pull that interpretation (that because is isn't stated as a permissible act it is therefore illegal) comes entirely into the realm of 'the ref is the sole judge of fact'.
I maintain that this ref was not prepared well enough or decided that he would simply run things his way and not the way that may be expected. If he had watched any Crusaders games closely before this one he would have noticed the pre-engage and let them know in his briefing that it wasn't acceptable under his interpretation. Just as in his scrum briefing to the halfback he should make it clear if he expects the ball to be cleared if available.PS: saying that the Crusaders should have done their homework is a bit more of an unknown. They would have researched the ref and looked for tapes of games but if they never saw him penalise anyone for leaning because in his realm of games teams don't do that, how are they to guess his response?
-
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
For me that's it in a nutshell. The laws are there but are open to interpretation. This is a known known and coaches really ought to be on top of stuff like this. Although it is somewhat different, the stuff the Eyeties pulled on England in the 6N falls into such a category. Should the ref have pre-warned England on how he would interpret the ruck area? To my mind the answer is "No". It is up to the coaching staff and then the players on the field. England really should have cottoned on a whole lot quicker and just bashed it up the guts but the bitched and moaned to the ref. FFS how much do these guys get paid? Do your research, then do your fuckin job.
PS: saying that the Crusaders should have done their homework is a bit more of an unknown. They would have researched the ref and looked for tapes of games but if they never saw him penalise anyone for leaning because in his realm of games teams don't do that, how are they to guess his response?
Ah mate, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one I think, but I take your point as above.
