Crusaders v Blues
-
Blues lost that game for one reason only. Nothing to do with resources or not being organised generally or not having the right talent.
They simply weren't well versed enough in negating mauls.
Once the Saders sniffed out the weakness it was all over.
In every other aspect of the game the Blues were either better or the equal of the Saders.I guess the only other aspect was that they should have recognised what the Saders were doing to play for mauls and tried to do everything they could to negate that.
-
@Crucial Blues have been pretty piss poor in this regard for a while.
The Highlanders had a bit of a similar issue at the end of their game v Crusaders - it was as obvious as night follows day what the Crusaders were trying to do in both games - credit to Crusaders for being awesome at it but both Blues and Highlanders were poor at not recognising that and playing to avoid penalties.
I was thinking during the game you can see why the Chiefs have had such success vs Crusaders - they play like the Blues played tonight except up front they dont get bossed around.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Crusaders v Blues:
@Crucial Blues have been pretty piss poor in this regard for a while.
The Highlanders had a bit of a similar issue at the end of their game v Crusaders - it was as obvious as night follows day what the Crusaders were trying to do in both games - credit to Crusaders for being awesome at it but both Blues and Highlanders were poor at not recognising that and playing to avoid penalties.
I was thinking during the game you can see why the Chiefs have had such success vs Crusaders - they play like the Blues played tonight except up front they dont get bossed around.
Crusaders were being cunning as well. As Kaino complained about they were jumping onto the defenders and milking penalties to the point where Blues could do nothing without getting carded.
Chiefs probably have one of the better maul defences going at the moment but they also went through a long period of trying to work it out and avoid too many penalties.fuck, I hate mauls (or rather the imbalance still in favour of the attacking team)
-
-
@gollum said in Crusaders v Blues:
So is Tana's "mana" not giving the Blues the huge lift everyone expected?
I'm shocked. As apparently that was what they needed.
I call bullshit on that. They are playing a hell of a lot better and if anyone carries fault for that loss (against a world class forward pack) it is Steve Jackson.
That maul defence should have been a focus leading into the game knowing the Crusaders go to but I guess they spent all work working on their previously poor lineout.
I am wondering what a flow on effect not having Patrick T available during the off season has had. A good amount of this work should have been done back then. -
-
@Crucial said in Crusaders v Blues:
@gollum said in Crusaders v Blues:
So is Tana's "mana" not giving the Blues the huge lift everyone expected?
I'm shocked. As apparently that was what they needed.
I call bullshit on that. They are playing a hell of a lot better and if anyone carries fault for that loss (against a world class forward pack) it is Steve Jackson.
That maul defence should have been a focus leading into the game knowing the Crusaders go to but I guess they spent all work working on their previously poor lineout.
I am wondering what a flow on effect not having Patrick T available during the off season has had. A good amount of this work should have been done back then.They have let two games slip at the end now. It is a cliche but they have yet to develop winning habits required to close out games
-
@gollum said in Crusaders v Blues:
So now the only thing holding them back is not having their team 100% available in pre (unlike everyone else), a forwards coach (not the guy Tana brought with him), and some time to train re mauls.
Nice strawman.
I'm not pretending it's that simple, but it's also not as simple as expecting Tana's mana to make them awesome.
They are a much better team than their results and small areas of weakness get ruthlessly exposed in the NZ conference. -
@canefan said in Crusaders v Blues:
@Crucial said in Crusaders v Blues:
@gollum said in Crusaders v Blues:
So is Tana's "mana" not giving the Blues the huge lift everyone expected?
I'm shocked. As apparently that was what they needed.
I call bullshit on that. They are playing a hell of a lot better and if anyone carries fault for that loss (against a world class forward pack) it is Steve Jackson.
That maul defence should have been a focus leading into the game knowing the Crusaders go to but I guess they spent all work working on their previously poor lineout.
I am wondering what a flow on effect not having Patrick T available during the off season has had. A good amount of this work should have been done back then.They have let two games slip at the end now. It is a cliche but they have yet to develop winning habits required to close out games
Yep, and obviously to develop winning habits you first have to start winning. That's why it is so difficult in this comp to dig yourself out of a losing streak.
-
@Crucial said in Crusaders v Blues:
Nice strawman.
I'm not pretending it's that simple, but it's also not as simple as expecting Tana's mana to make them awesome.I agree with you on that. My issue was coach after coach had failed at the Blues, people expected exactlky that from Tana.
When Tana was named (- a guy who was a disaster as a coach at Toulon & good at Counties, a side with good resourses that has underperformed in the past) a lot of Tana fans leapt on the bandwagon talking up how he was ideal as his "mana" would be pivotal, or his understanding of the islanders would be great (as if Pat Lam didn't bring that). There were a stack of posts on her plugging exactly that
The Blues issues are far more structual than bringing in an inspirational green young coach can turn around & hyping him up just sets him up to fail. And he is certainly not the coaching legend folks think he is.
You only have to look at what Lam has done offshore, he didn't suddenly become good after being terrible at the Blues, he just got to work in good structure for a change.
-
@gollum said in Crusaders v Blues:
@Crucial said in Crusaders v Blues:
Nice strawman.
I'm not pretending it's that simple, but it's also not as simple as expecting Tana's mana to make them awesome.I agree with you on that. My issue was coach after coach had failed at the Blues, people expected exactlky that from Tana.
When Tana was named (- a guy who was a disaster as a coach at Toulon & good at Counties, a side with good resourses that has underperformed in the past) a lot of Tana fans leapt on the bandwagon talking up how he was ideal as his "mana" would be pivotal, or his understanding of the islanders would be great (as if Pat Lam didn't bring that). There were a stack of posts on her plugging exactly that
The Blues issues are far more structual than bringing in an inspirational green young coach can turn around & hyping him up just sets him up to fail. And he is certainly not the coaching legend folks think he is.
You only have to look at what Lam has done offshore, he didn't suddenly become good after being terrible at the Blues, he just got to work in good structure for a change.
T is a coaching legend to me for one reason only.
The Shield. -
If anything, with Tana coming, I was hoping it would make the Blues a franchise players would want to come to. We got SBW and Pulu, but I was hoping he could pull in players in positions that we are lacking.
We really struggled to bring in any first fives. I'm still surprised we got Perofeta to come along. -
@mimic said in Crusaders v Blues:
If anything, with Tana coming, I was hoping it would make the Blues a franchise players would want to come to. We got SBW and Pulu, but I was hoping he could pull in players in positions that we are lacking.
We really struggled to bring in any first fives. I'm still surprised we got Perofeta to come along.Don't forget Manu. That's three ABs he attracted in.
The number 10 thing is the perennial issue. At least Francis is better than some of the options in the past.
The trouble is that there simply aren't a surplus of good 10s that have not been locked in elsewhere. I would say Black would be a good possibility if he wasn't locked into the Canes but that's about it. Getting Perofeta was the type of gamble/early play that is needed to catch a good first five. Look at what the Chiefs did to get DMac. Without that early grab and a scholarship offer he would probably be at the Crusaders. -
Yeah i'd say a big issue with the 10 jersey is historical. You've had 13 years of failure in the 10 jersey and a media/fan spotlight on that jersey where expectations are huge.
Players seem to be simply saying - why risk it - theyd rather sit with other franchises even if they arent first choice 10 there - even Delaney turned them down.
The other issue being the area being woeful at producing their own 10s.
-
CRusaders shored up the mid-field when they took Wainui off
-
So far Blues are no better than prior seasons. The fowards are an Achilles heal - when it matters they get schooled. Maybe that's part of the reason why no first five looks any good. The team lacks vision and passing skills, they constantly turn the ball over and their tactics and player selections haven't evolved. The Auckland ITM brand of rugby has been a massive failure at the next level up.
That said they will still beat up teams and have some big wins but against goods sides they are not consistent enough.
-
-
@Wally said in Crusaders v Blues:
I was at the game. I couldn't believe how lazy A Ioane was when he came on.
He'll never be an All Black.
