• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Rugby Matches
crusadershurricanes
278 Posts 46 Posters 15.2k Views
Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to Chris B. on last edited by
    #219

    @chris-b yeah the canes game plan was puzzling, kicking for one, but even with the saders mid-field is usually pretty tough to crack, Laumape barely ran at it with any venom to test it last night

    CyclopsC 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • gt12G Offline
    gt12G Offline
    gt12
    replied to shark on last edited by
    #220

    @shark said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    At least last night's game eases the AB midfield 'logjam' with Laumape having by far his worst game of the season. No pressure to select him now.

    Agreed. His defense was woeful at times - it’s a real shame because, on attack, I think he has the tools to be awesome at the next level. On defense though, he looks a liability right now.

    WingerW 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • CyclopsC Offline
    CyclopsC Offline
    Cyclops
    replied to taniwharugby on last edited by
    #221

    @taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @chris-b yeah the canes game plan was puzzling, kicking for one, but even with the saders mid-field is usually pretty tough to crack, Laumape barely ran at it with any venom to test it last night

    It looked even more puzzling because when they final had someone (Savea I think) hit it up in midfield he broke the line and made a good 20-30 metres. But then they never tried it again. It felt a bit like the 'canes had out-thought themselves, trying to double bluff the crusaders and hoping that Laumape would draw defenders in by reputation creating opportunities elsewhere, and then for whatever reason didn't switch up when that wasn't working.

    I'm still confused about the application of the rules for Barrett's almost-try. I get that because the ref stopped play the restart is a scrum, but surely the ball was still live after it was placed, so the 'turnover' (i..e Bridge picking up the ball after Barrett placed it) was good so it should have been a Crusader's feed?

    boobooB 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • sharkS Offline
    sharkS Offline
    shark
    wrote on last edited by
    #222

    Laumape defended poorly and his ordinarily eye-catching wrecking-ball runs were nowhere to be seen. Was there also an appalling kick? Truly showed his lack of dimensions last night.

    canefanC KiwiMurphK 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • Chris B.C Offline
    Chris B.C Offline
    Chris B.
    replied to dingo on last edited by
    #223

    @dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.

    I'm wondering a bit more about this, because you often hear the commentators talk about "who has come up first".

    I'm certainly no expert on the front row, but surely if only the hooker has come up, as in the case of Taylor, the only way that can happen is if the bind between the opposition hooker and tighthead has fractured? Otherwise - under pressure - Taylor's head is trapped beneath their shoulders?

    Who's in the front row club to explain this?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    replied to shark on last edited by
    #224

    @shark said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Laumape defended poorly and his ordinarily eye-catching wrecking-ball runs were nowhere to be seen. Was there also an appalling kick? Truly showed his lack of dimensions last night.

    He, like most of the Canes, was not helped by their poor pattern and the superior pattern of the crusaders. Just like their pattern cast the entire team in a good light

    taniwharugbyT 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to canefan on last edited by
    #225

    @canefan poor game plan, execution and players not in top form all contributed, but ultimately the Crusaders were just too good.

    Right now:
    Head to Head - Crusaders $1.08, Lions $7.00
    $1.87 to give the LIons an 18.5 point start
    $3.50 for 12 and under
    $1.42 for 13+

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • pukunuiP Offline
    pukunuiP Offline
    pukunui
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #226

    @stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @pukunui said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Two things.

    1. Has a deliberate knock down really jumped from a penalty to an automatic yellow card as the commentators seem to keep suggesting? Or are they talking shit again. Either way im sick of these things. Turning me off the game big time.

    This is what the lawyer, who defends cited players before the WR and SANZAAR judiciary has to say about that:

    Fantastic. That is exactly what i wanted to see. It has been creeping into the commentary more and more. IMO that law's worth is debatable in the first place when it is a penalty only. To have constant calls for automatic yellow on top gives me the shits.

    Crazy HorseC 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurph
    replied to shark on last edited by
    #227

    @shark said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Laumape defended poorly and his ordinarily eye-catching wrecking-ball runs were nowhere to be seen. Was there also an appalling kick? Truly showed his lack of dimensions last night.

    Yes also plenty of missed tackles and poor distribution. Not a memorable night.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    wrote on last edited by
    #228

    Feeling sorry for the lad. Taufua deservedly called into the ABs in May, but couldn't play because of injury. If he had any chance of being called up for the RC, that chance is gone now, too. I know there's disagreement about whether he should be an AB or not, but this is just really tough luck.

    KirwanK 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • KirwanK Offline
    KirwanK Offline
    Kirwan
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #229

    @stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Feeling sorry for the lad. Taufua deservedly called into the ABs in May, but couldn't play because of injury. If he had any chance of being called up for the RC, that chance is gone now, too. I know there's disagreement about whether he should be an AB or not, but this is just really tough luck.

    Deservedly in you opinion. He’s fine in patches at Super Rugby level, but the Crusaders are stronger with Samu at 6, much better work rate.

    StargazerS 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to Kirwan on last edited by
    #230

    @kirwan Yes, in my opinon and that of the All Blacks selectors. Taufua played at 8 before the June break and was massive until then. It was only after not playing for weeks due to injury and being moved to 6 that he wasn't as strong as before, although not half as bad as some people want to believe. For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?

    KiwiMurphK KirwanK antipodeanA 3 Replies Last reply
    1
  • KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurph
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #231

    @stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @kirwan For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?

    Before he got the ball ripped off him by Jordie.

    StargazerS taniwharugbyT 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to KiwiMurph on last edited by Stargazer
    #232

    @kiwimurph Yep indeed, but it is funny that some people on here only look at that last part, and not at the first, when talking about some players.

    alt text

    nzzpN 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugbyT Offline
    taniwharugby
    replied to KiwiMurph on last edited by
    #233

    @kiwimurph bro, you can discount anything like that when done by a Barrett, those fellas are gods and do anything better than anyone else!

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • KirwanK Offline
    KirwanK Offline
    Kirwan
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #234

    @stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @kirwan Yes, in my opinon and that of the All Blacks selectors. Taufua played at 8 before the June break and was massive until then. It was only after not playing for weeks due to injury and being moved to 6 that he wasn't as strong as before, although not half as bad as some people want to believe. For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?

    I’d guess they have a line through his name for covering six, which will reduce his squad value dramatically.

    Watching players scoot past him from scrums, he might as well not be there.

    And it’s not like the AB selectors aren’t wrong sometimes or take a punt sometimes. Look at Fifita.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #235

    @stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?

    We're setting the bar that low?

    StargazerS 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #236

    @antipodean Just one example.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • nzzpN Online
    nzzpN Online
    nzzp
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #237

    @stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @kiwimurph Yep indeed, but it is funny that some people on here only look at that last part, and not at the first, when talking about some players.

    alt text

    Those glasses are twice as large as they need to be.

    StargazerS 1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to nzzp on last edited by
    #238

    @nzzp 😄 I could make the picture smaller ...

    1 Reply Last reply
    1

Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
Rugby Matches
crusadershurricanes
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.