Crusaders v Hurricanes
-
@foobanz said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Going for the corner was absolutely the right call.
Whether it's normal time or golden point, you want to be in the best position to win the game. That was the opportunity.
How they try and score is a another story, quick ball and up the midfield would be a better idea due to our known weakness trying to score tight forward tries.
Put Jordie in the pocket for a droppie or keep phasing.
Why would you go for the corner, then set Jordie up for a droppie?
If you go for the corner, you definitely don't want to try and maul, when your maul hasn't been great.
-
@taniwharugby I'm not saying corner then droppie, I'm saying go for the corner, then try and score.
Maybe you try and maul it, but not exactly a Canes strength.
I'd probably just keep it simple, ball at the front, crash up the midfield, then jump in the pocket after a few phases if you've got a clear shot in front.
But my main point was that going for the corner was the right idea as opposed to trying to go to golden point.
-
@foobanz said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
But my main point was that going for the corner was the right idea as opposed to trying to go to golden point.
It's the correct decision if the Canes thought they were fading and the Crusaders were fresher for some reason (lots of disruption in the lead up, maybe some covid recovery etc)
-
@kiwimurph Yup and teams still try and take them on there.......
-
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Isn't there a stat that the Crusaders have never conceded a rolling maul lineout drive try under Razor/Jase Ryan?
Wow that def puts the decision in a different light - not going for the line but going for the maul try. Some clever move to get Ardie powering in there would have been better
-
-
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Yeah. If we have only a 20% chance of scoring from 5 metres out, then we have a low chance of winning in golden point.
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning. That's the point we have been making. There was no option at that stage which gave the Hurricanes a greater than 50% chance of winning.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
