Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Taufua hasn’t been the same since they move him to 6.
Fixed. He is clearly a better 8 than a 6.
But the same level of effort just isn’t there regardless of the number of his jersey.
Looks very laboured and is not carrying ball strong.
-
Much more disciplined effort by the Crusaders this week. Very few penalties allowing them to dominate possession - especially in the first half.
Defence was excellent - apart from letting in that soft try at the end.
Was that Siataga's first appearance for the Crusaders? On the plus side he gets about 90 seconds of play-off experience that he wasn't expecting. On the downside, he gets a broken arm.
Thought Julian Savea had a good game to sign off for the Canes. Probably looked their most threatening back - perhaps along with Perenara, who was pretty good.
Canes forwards stood up pretty well in most facets for most of the game - apart from the lineout.
-
@winger said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Good to see Dane Coles stringing a few words together as waterboy in the post game huddle
He's one player we need fully fit and back as captain.
Will be very important in Japan too. Remember how we did vs the Lions without Coles?
-
@shadowtrooper said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Looking at that effort from the Canes, the Chiefs were robbed. They would have at least given the Crusaders something to think about and a fight to the death. Most of that 2nd half was a half-hearted effort from the Canes.
Perhaps the Chiefs should have executed a little bit better last weekend.....
-
@shadowtrooper said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Looking at that effort from the Canes, the Chiefs were robbed. They would have at least given the Crusaders something to think about and a fight to the death. Most of that 2nd half was a half-hearted effort from the Canes.
It’s that sort of logic that makes TSF World renowned.
We would’ve fed off Weber and DMacs mistakes all night long.
-
-
So while previously I was running alongside and only occasionally jumping on the runningboard I'm now back fully on the Crusaders' bandwagon again.
Always wanting the best result for the NZ teams I was supporting my Red and Black brethren tonight to ensure a NZ hosted final.
Am now, as a former resident of North Canterbury and descendant of Cantab ancestors, discovering an ability to play the banjo that manifests only around Super Rugby play-off time.
Go Saders.
-
@booboo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
So while previously I was running alongside and only occasionally jumping on the runningboard I'm now back fully on the Crusaders' bandwagon again.
Always wanting the best result for the NZ teams I was supporting my Red and Black brethren tonight to ensure a NZ hosted final.
Am now, as a former resident of North Canterbury and descendant of Cantab ancestors, discovering an ability to play the banjo that manifests only around Super Rugby play-off time.
Go Saders.
I wouldn't look at that family tree too closely if I was you. The same names might repeat themselves in different places
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Maybe you lose a game 12-6 with D Mac playing but more often the score isn't going to be close like that when he is out there
Probably something like 31-32...
-
Never said the Canes didn't deserve to be there, cos they did - just wish the conference system wasn't rigged and the NZ sides should have been in different sides of the draw
-
Well done crusaders. Far to good for us. Held us out whenever we got some momentum or a sniff of a chance. Then applied constant pressure and converted that into points.
Team effort for sure but richie m stood out. He had a great game and made the most of the platform laid up front. For our guys jules and gareth Evans led the effort and energy stats. TJ had a few good moments.
Stink it wasn't a tighter contest, but suspect it'll still be closer than the final!! 😁 gooood the saders!!
-
@pukunui said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Two things.
- Has a deliberate knock down really jumped from a penalty to an automatic yellow card as the commentators seem to keep suggesting? Or are they talking shit again. Either way im sick of these things. Turning me off the game big time.
This is what the lawyer, who defends cited players before the WR and SANZAAR judiciary has to say about that:
-
@pukunui @Stargazer were they conflating how it works in 7s?
-
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@booboo Hmmm, not sure. Don't think this rule is different in 7s.
Maybe not the rule (law) but application and interpretation as often there's a player running into a hole in 7s so they pretty much go straight to the card.
-
@pukunui said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Two things.
- Has a deliberate knock down really jumped from a penalty to an automatic yellow card as the commentators seem to keep suggesting? Or are they talking shit again. Either way im sick of these things. Turning me off the game big time.
And by the way (certain phrases trigger my inner Pavlovian dog) can we please refer to deliberate knock on or deliberate knock forward. Knocking the ball down is not illegal.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Can't remember whether I already posted this.
Should really be a sell out though. TBF, it isn't just the Crusaders who struggle, it is everyone but all playoff games should sell out a 20k seat stadium.
-
have to think if Razor can go back to back (without even considering what he might do next year) he puts himself right into reckoning post Hansen, forcing NZR to have a rethink about thier current 'succession plans' for the ABs coaching team.
-
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.
Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.
Yeah, so the Crusader who stood up should be penalised. Not the canes.
Going backwards while maintaining a bind is not penalisable.
Especially as the ball actually came out of the scrum past the hurricane number 8
It was one of those terrible ruck or maul must end in a penalty decisions
