Hurricanes v Crusaders
-
Was a bizarre sort of game. Don’t have too many issues with the reffing because as we’ve seen the new laws/interpretations have troubled all sides at the breakdown.
Hall / Mo’unga combination makes a huge difference for us.
-
@African-Monkey said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
Billy Proctor what have you done!
Mumbled something to Mrs Boo sbout "safety of the touchline".
Then Ian Smith says exactly the same thing.
Something to said for the old fashioned concepts.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
Enjoyable game.
Jordan was terrific.
Can't say I was impressed by Bridge. Was not threatening at all.
Was he playing?
-
@junior said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@KiwiMurph said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
Enjoyable game.
Jordan was terrific.
Can't say I was impressed by Bridge. Was not threatening at all.
Bridge was Bridge. Unless he gets give the ball 20m out with plenty of space to run straight over the line he’s not going to add much #betterwingerthanriekothough
?que?
-
@booboo said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@KiwiMurph said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
Enjoyable game.
Jordan was terrific.
Can't say I was impressed by Bridge. Was not threatening at all.
Was he playing?
Yep had a great work rate got through alot of work for the Crusaders
Saved us a few times on D -
@ACT-Crusader Interesting, I thought Drummond made a difference when he came on. I didn't think Mo'unga and Hall were THAT good not that they did anything wrong.
-
@booboo said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@junior said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@gt12 yep, I’ve been saying for years that he’s a great rugby player but a terrible halfback.
Nah. Happy little fucker. Perfect for a half back.
Doesn't make s good skipper though.
That should be 'yappy'. Auto correct.
-
@African-Monkey said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@ACT-Crusader Interesting, I thought Drummond made a difference when he came on. I didn't think Mo'unga and Hall were THAT good not that they did anything wrong.
I agree they didn’t have a standout game but there are little things that their combination do well particularly when we were on the back foot at times and the Canes had upped their pressure.
I thought all the subs made quite a difference for us. Just helped up the tempo.
-
I've just starting just watching the match.
This is an incredible poorly coached and selected sideIn the first minute the Canes have a line-out well into the Crusaders half. Blackwell couldn't get the ball and the line-out is lost. The fact that's hes only 1.90m likely has a big part to play with this. In fact why select a side with only one decent line-out option. And Fifita is only 1.96. It's poor selecting like this that I have never experienced before. And there are other option
But it get worse. Cory Jane is the defense coach. They need a new one. Savea goes charging up out of the line so the defensive line is shot. Then Goodhue easily beats Laumape (he never has been a great defender. Maybe Canes need to look at other options at 2nd). Then it goes to the other side and Blackwell is standing there looking lost and lets players break the line (along with Armstrong). In part Blackwell is just too slow and clumsy. If he can get to a player they sort of fall over him but in this case he couldn't. So maybe its the cattle giving to Jane but the defense was appalling and lead to an easy Crusaders try. It was a try gifted by the Canes due to very poor selections and coaching.
-
One thing I noticed was the improved defense of Mo'unga esp. in cover. He got knocked out the way by Laumape for a Canes try but apart from that very good. It is an obvious "work on" because a few years ago it was a shoddy part of his game.
-
I enjoyed the match actually. Canes did well to stay in it even by going up in threes. I did think that I have watched about 20 years of that team though - not a great pack, poor set piece, need a decent 10 and some pretty good backs outside that. It didn't work in the past and is unlikely to now.
The enforcing of the laws may have some unexpected outcomes, but it will be up to the coaches and players how that pans out. Already seem to be a lot of breakdowns that are unattended by the defence, leaving more defenders available but the ball is so quick that there seems to be space anyway. The attacking side seems to get hammered with the penalties too for being off feet, or sealing off if they do show up. It stops the mess of guys on the ground and speeds things up but defenses will adapt. Interesting with so few scrums too and whether that continues.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
One thing I noticed was the improved defense of Mo'unga esp. in cover. He got knocked out the way by Laumape for a Canes try but apart from that very good. It is an obvious "work on" because a few years ago it was a shoddy part of his game.
Yeah me too he dropped Laumape on his butt with head on Hits on a couple of occasions,apart from the one you mention which led to the canes try.
-
@Snowy said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
I enjoyed the match actually. Canes did well to stay in it even by going up in threes. I did think that I have watched about 20 years of that team though - not a great pack, poor set piece, need a decent 10 and some pretty good backs outside that. It didn't work in the past and is unlikely to now.
The enforcing of the laws may have some unexpected outcomes, but it will be up to the coaches and players how that pans out. Already seem to be a lot of breakdowns that are unattended by the defence, leaving more defenders available but the ball is so quick that there seems to be space anyway. The attacking side seems to get hammered with the penalties too for being off feet, or sealing off if they do show up. It stops the mess of guys on the ground and speeds things up but defenses will adapt. Interesting with so few scrums too and whether that continues.
Less scrums because less phases under pressure and less handling errors because of that?
-
Good game, correct result.
I agree with those lamenting the Canes' selections and/or depth. Too many just aren't high Super Rugby standard, including Tiatia, Goosen, van Wyk, JGB, Booth, Prinsep, Kirifi, Blackwell and Armstrong. Fifita is a flanker who can cover lock but the line-out is far too short with Blackwell and Kirifi simply midgets in their positions. Neither Savea or Prinsep are large by position either. Even if they had some tall timber to replace Blackwell and/or if they had Fifita on the blindside they'd have a much taller line-out. It's hard to see where the Canes get a win from and now they have a bye week to fall further behind the leaders; they'll come back 2-3 wins behind the Blues, Crusaders and Highlanders, albeit with a game in hand on the Blues. Best case for the Canes is Chiefs and 'Landers wins then only two teams have two wins. If the Blues win they have three and the Crusaders would have two and with a bye out the way.
-
@Crucial said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@Snowy said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
I enjoyed the match actually. Canes did well to stay in it even by going up in threes. I did think that I have watched about 20 years of that team though - not a great pack, poor set piece, need a decent 10 and some pretty good backs outside that. It didn't work in the past and is unlikely to now.
The enforcing of the laws may have some unexpected outcomes, but it will be up to the coaches and players how that pans out. Already seem to be a lot of breakdowns that are unattended by the defence, leaving more defenders available but the ball is so quick that there seems to be space anyway. The attacking side seems to get hammered with the penalties too for being off feet, or sealing off if they do show up. It stops the mess of guys on the ground and speeds things up but defenses will adapt. Interesting with so few scrums too and whether that continues.
Less scrums because less phases under pressure and less handling errors because of that?
Quite possibly. Fewer players around the ball at rucks too? Less chance of the knock on? Might watch one of the games again and see what is actually happening, but they seem almost uncontested at times unless there is a chance of a turnover. I don't think anyone players, coaches (or me) quite have it worked out yet.
The handling skills (even in the rain in the Tron - Nepo aside) have been pretty good. I guess if you don't have offside players in your face when you are receiving it also helps.
-
-
@Snowy said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@Crucial said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
@Snowy said in Hurricanes v Crusaders:
I enjoyed the match actually. Canes did well to stay in it even by going up in threes. I did think that I have watched about 20 years of that team though - not a great pack, poor set piece, need a decent 10 and some pretty good backs outside that. It didn't work in the past and is unlikely to now.
The enforcing of the laws may have some unexpected outcomes, but it will be up to the coaches and players how that pans out. Already seem to be a lot of breakdowns that are unattended by the defence, leaving more defenders available but the ball is so quick that there seems to be space anyway. The attacking side seems to get hammered with the penalties too for being off feet, or sealing off if they do show up. It stops the mess of guys on the ground and speeds things up but defenses will adapt. Interesting with so few scrums too and whether that continues.
Less scrums because less phases under pressure and less handling errors because of that?
Quite possibly. Fewer players around the ball at rucks too? Less chance of the knock on? Might watch one of the games again and see what is actually happening, but they seem almost uncontested at times unless there is a chance of a turnover. I don't think anyone players, coaches (or me) quite have it worked out yet.
The handling skills (even in the rain in the Tron - Nepo aside) have been pretty good. I guess if you don't have offside players in your face when you are receiving it also helps.
The 'clearly onside' ruling is a definite success and should be adopted by WR. They could call it the 'Itoje Ruling'
