Highlanders v Crusaders
-
@Chris-B Heeeey you are still around 😉
-
-
-
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
-
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more. -
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.At 21 Dan Carter wasn't fantastic off the right foot either.
-
@SouthernMann
Right......but pretty fuckin awesome at everything else.As were Retallick and Whitelock.
-
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@SouthernMann
Right......but pretty fuckin awesome at everything else.As were Retallick and Whitelock.
Both of which made their Super Rugby debut at 21. All.Black's later that year too. Holland debuted two years ago. Albeit for the shit Landers. Not eligible for the All Blacks until next year. Hard comparison. The kid is pretty good.
-
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.Ok well we see him different, I saw him winning plenty of ball in lineouts (he usually calling them too), I think he does everything I want a lock to do. Of course he will kick on why I said I can see him becoming a great, not saying he is one now.
Iobviously watch for different things than you, skin colour doesn't even come into any calculation of any player I watch anyway. -
@SouthernMann said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.At 21 Dan Carter wasn't fantastic off the right foot either.
Bang on mate,Sam Whitelock and Brodie Rettalick all developed as they got test experience etc too. Sam W when he started wasn't the dominant force he became, I don't recall a lock that was when he forst came on scene.
-
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.LOL.
Not dominant at the lineout? This has got to be a piss-take. On the eye test he'd be the safest lineout option Otago/Highlanders have ever had... always clean with a two-handed take.
If that isn't good enough for you, he is seventh for the most lineout takes in the comp, the highest ranking New Zealand player there, despite missing two and a half games due to concussion.
-
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.thats just a super weird take.....are you implying he's only got a gig because hes white or something? you haven't described any other physical trait so im assuming thats important in your critique?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.thats just a super weird take.....are you implying he's only got a gig because hes white or something? you haven't described any other physical trait so im assuming thats important in your critique?
The safe white boy term was something referring to former crappy Saders backlines. Old joke.
-
Just saw the final try by the Crusaders. Interesting as was talking about it in the previous game - if refs want to call 'tackle', the ball carrier should not be able to continue forward. Players get released and crib a few metres - or in the case below, score a try.
@Damo you reffed, thoughts on this? Looked very very weird to me; I think a comp-wide interpretation of either calling maul when the attacking player's mate joins, or cracking down hard on cribbing metres would be a good solution. Or do both!
-
I don't see anything controversial about it. He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball. Not his fault he can fall over the line and score.
IMO the real issue is the length of time it takes for refs to call a maul.
-
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball.
Tackled yes - it's the instruction on the tacklers to release that enables players to drive forward. In the olden days, the tacklers would have gone to ground with him ... but the ref tells you not to now.
-
@nzzp said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball.
Tackled yes - it's the instruction on the tacklers to release that enables players to drive forward. In the olden days, the tacklers would have gone to ground with him ... but the ref tells you not to now.
That's because the player is tackled, so you have to release him. They should've made a dominant tackle and drove him backwards.
It would be better if they stopped being pedantic about that law and made the tackle an obvious issue of the player being on the ground.
As I said; it's the laissez faire adjudication of the maul that's the problem. As soon as there's two from the defending team it should be called immediately, then they'd have to do something positive and the defenders could legally defend a metre or two from their try line.
-
@African-Monkey said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Chris-B Heeeey you are still around 😉
Running an experiment to see how Rob would get on without the benefit of my helpful advice.
Not that well as it turns out!
-
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball.
Tackled yes - it's the instruction on the tacklers to release that enables players to drive forward. In the olden days, the tacklers would have gone to ground with him ... but the ref tells you not to now.
That's because the player is tackled, so you have to release him. They should've made a dominant tackle and drove him backwards.
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground, i.e. has one or both knees on the ground, is sitting on the ground or is on top of another player who is on the ground.
Refs have started interpreting this as 'a knee brushed the ground' - which is where the issue is. If you are actually on the ground, you can't drive forward ... but if you're still upright and a knee touches, then it is all on.
I agree with you on the 'maul' situation - but that only tackles (haha) half of the issue. Question: how do you stop someone who is still standing on the goal line and drops a knee to brush the ground. The tacklers have to release, you can't interfere with the ball (no ripping or grabbing) and you can't then stop them placing the ball over the line to score. Doesn't feel or look right to me.
