Force v Crusaders
-
<p>Dilbert has a view on this too</p>
<p> </p>
<p>[attachment=2009:dt080508.gif]</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="570593" data-time="1460089847">
<div>
<p>Dilbert has a view on this too</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gif" alt="attachicon.gif"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=2009'>dt080508.gif</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>because of my role, i always liked this one</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kLtoI-U1SpA/TjA-TT3wD1I/AAAAAAAAC0w/VGCmC8fsWgg/s1600/1429.strip.gif" alt="1429.strip.gif"></p> -
<p>I'm not making any numbers up TR.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't have last season's table in front of me, but I know if the Crusaders weren't the highest scoring team during the round-robin fixtures in 2015 than they were very close to the highest. Now people can choose to ignore this fact and point to the fact that they didn't score many tries against the Chiefs, but when it comes to point scoring Blackadder can't do much more than have his team score more points than any other team.</p> -
<p>my post was in response to SammyC's one above yours....not saying you made them up, just that was mildly related and funny!</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="570600" data-time="1460090904">
<div>
<p>my post was in response to SammyC's one above yours....not saying you made them up, just that was mildly related and funny!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>No worries, I wasn't sure if you were responding to my post.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cantab79" data-cid="570591" data-time="1460089615">
<div>
<p>Just saying, Blackadder always cops plenty of grief for how poorly his team attacks, but even when they top the attack stats for the entire competition people still cricticise them for being one dimensional and easy to read in attack.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Because those things aren't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to top the attacks stats with a one dimensional and easy to read attack, it all depends on the opposition.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Stats don't give you the full story.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="570606" data-time="1460092970">
<div>
<p>Because those things aren't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to top the attacks stats with a one dimensional and easy to read attack, it all depends on the opposition.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Stats don't give you the full story.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Fair enough, I just disagree that the Crusaders attack has been as bad as some people to make out. And I disagree that a team can have the best attack in the comp if they are" one dimensional" and "easy to read". That defies common sense and logic. The Crusaders may not have had the most potent backline in Super Rugby last year, but a high portion of their points were scored off set pieces and through the forwards. That's still 'attack' IMO. If anything, a team that can score through both the forwards and the backs is less one dimensional and harder to read than a team that relies solely on brilliant backline play.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="570613" data-time="1460094218">
<div>
<p>No-one said they had the worst attack in the world, just the worst attack in NZ. We have high standards.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I didn't say that anyone said they had the worst attack in the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In 2015 the Crusaders scored more points that any other team in Super Rugby. Now I'm not suggesting that this means that they were God's gift to attacking Rugby, and yes their overly lateral, side-to-side play was frustrating at times. But I am really struggling to get my head around how people can consider the best attack in the comp to be "one dimensional" and "easy to read". How bad were all the other team's attacks if the team that scored the most points had such a poor attack?</p> -
<p>$1.95 to give the Force a 10.5pt start seems a good deal</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cantab79" data-cid="570629" data-time="1460097349">
<div>
<p>I didn't say that anyone said they had the worst attack in the world.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In 2015 the Crusaders scored more points that any other team in Super Rugby. Now I'm not suggesting that this means that they were God's gift to attacking Rugby, and yes their overly lateral, side-to-side play was frustrating at times. But I am really struggling to get my head around how people can consider the best attack in the comp to be "one dimensional" and "easy to read". How bad were all the other team's attacks if the team that scored the most points had such a poor attack?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Facts do nothing when you're arguing with the Fern's circle jerk, this is the forum that proclaimed Blackadder as a failure after the 2011 season. Best just to bait them and watch the fireworks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tana's record as coach is shithouse compared to Blackadder's.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Canerbry" data-cid="570841" data-time="1460112011"><p>
Tana's record as coach is shithouse compared to Blackadder's.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Won the same number of Super Rugby championships though. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Canerbry" data-cid="570841" data-time="1460112011">
<div>
<p>Facts do nothing when you're arguing with the Fern's circle jerk, this is the forum that proclaimed Blackadder as a failure after the 2011 season. Best just to bait them and watch the fireworks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tana's record as coach is shithouse compared to Blackadder's.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Hmmm....how's Blackadder gone since then?</p> -
S'funny Caners.<br><br>
I thought about you and your cronies when the Blues hit the lead v the Chiefs tonight.<br><br>
That was a win-win regardless of the result huh?<br><br>
Chiefs lose: rip into the arrogant Chiefs fans. Pumped up self righteous tossers that they are. How dare they rate themselves. We've won 7, 7!, championships.<br><br>
Blues lose: yeah Tana's so good at rebuilding that "culture" at the Blues. Arrogant JAFAs. How dare they think that they can get better. We've won 7, 7!, championships. -
<p>The Crusaders are a far better attacking team then the Blues. The Blues have a lot more individual brilliance but the Crusaders have a well balanced backline where the players gel with each other. There is more to attack than scoring pretty tries.</p>
-
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="570845" data-time="1460112612">
<div>
<p>Hmmm....how's Blackadder gone since then?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Pretty good man, 2 semi finals and a dodgy final loss to a crooked ref after topping our conference. And you?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyhoo let's leave you jealous pig-island haters at the door; we should be much further ahead, too many turnovers. Forwards dominant, Read looking magnificent, McNicholl with good finishing for his try, Nadolo and Volavola look like they've met before. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>How about... Tana's record as coach is worse than Mark Hammett's.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Canerbry" data-cid="570855" data-time="1460116012">
<div>
<p>Pretty good man, 2 semi finals and a dodgy final loss to a crooked ref after topping our conference. And you?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Anyhoo let's leave you jealous pig-island haters at the door; we should be much further ahead, too many turnovers. Forwards dominant, Read looking magnificent, McNicholl with good finishing for his try, Nadolo and Volavola look like they've met before. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>How about... Tana's record as coach is worse than Mark Hammett's.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Haha someone get this baby a tissue.</p>
