SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil)
-
@Steve said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
@ACT-Crusader said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
Taylor, Barrett, Mo’unga, Fainga’anuku, Jordan and even Ennor all played well.
Ennor gets unfair flack in my opinion. He's a decent player.
I thought he was going to be a 70 cap allblack when he first arrived
-
@Chris-B said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
@Stargazer said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
Stop it at 14 seconds and look how compressed the Blues defensive line is.
They end up with three men on Lio-Willie and two on Jordan - and neither get the ball.
Sullivan left in no-man's land with a two on one.
56 seconds and it's a bit reminiscent of what Ireland did to us.
Telea thinks Richie's going to throw the long skip pass to Ennor again (think Beaudy going for an intercept), but this time it's short to Will and he's got a big hole to run into.
-
@Steve said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
@ACT-Crusader said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
Taylor, Barrett, Mo’unga, Fainga’anuku, Jordan and even Ennor all played well.
Ennor gets unfair flack in my opinion. He's a decent player.
I think Ennor has been much better this season than seasons prior
-
-
-
@Stargazer said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
@Winger That's such a cliché.
Unless you're Jordie against Italy.
-
@Winger said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
@Steve said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
Ennor
Easier to look good in a team that's winning so easily.
Contributing to that winning is all that matters
-
@Bovidae said in SF: Crusaders (Good) v Blues (Evil):
You have to accept that the breakdown is a mess with Gardner. Best to try to be dominant/physical and take your chances.
AG was pants, but you play to the whistle. Blues ought to have just abandoned the rule book, grasped AG's indulgent style and let chaos prevail.
Mind you one has to take one's hat off to the Saders's ability to lurk offside a whole match without being penalised out of the game.
-
-
-
Finals are about applying pressure and Blues don't play a style that applies pressure.
Their kicking game doesn't apply pressure and their attacking shape doesn't apply pressure.
Their attacking shape if anything invites pressure by involving a lot of standing still, passing behind the gain line and slow developing plays. Anything but direct.
-
The Chiefs v Brumbies game will be interesting, expecting a nail biter of a game. Saders would probably prefer facing the Brumbies at home. Macmillan said he was hoping tonight's game would see each team bash each other up. It was a statement by the Saders to towel up such a starstudded side.
-
Super Rugby Pacific: Chiefs coach Clayton McMillan reveals savage hopes for rival teams' semi-final | Newshub
Clayton McMillan pulled no punches when asked what he wanted to see go down between the Blues and the Crusaders - a match that will decide his side's potential final opponents.
-
Wow.. didn't expect that. Pretty much contradicted what anyone said on the forum.
Can I repeat what I have said previously a number of times? Blues loose forwards as a unit are not the sum of their parts (although Papalii was a soldier). And I will repeat once again, Clarke should not be anywhere near the All Blacks.
OK, these Super finals have always been interesting because every game has different tactics depending on the game and opponents. Tonight the Crusaders attacked the breakdown, brought in the defenders, and exposed defensive holes on the wide channels. Next week, if it is the Chiefs, it won't be so easy. McMillian has proved to be Razor's equal and the bounce of the ball has decided things.
