Final: Chiefs v Crusaders
-
@Chris said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
You can blame anyone or anything for a loss but that will not make you better it will keep you in an entitled we deserve it mentality.
No way to build a dynasty look within to achieve what you want.
You can’t grow if you don’t understand.Did you literally google "worst internet internal growth memes" to come up with this shit? Are these quotes of some shit pic with a waterfall or the sun coming up or something?
No respect for the fans who are all over instagram being abusive. Sad indictment of the world we live in.
-
Ok yeah sorry entitled babies you are the greatest team in the history of the game,O’Keefe needs to be hung from a tree in Hamilton,
And no body should ever dare to beat the Chiefs in a final again.
That is for all the feral fluffybunnies,to make them feel better. -
@Winger said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Windows97 On the contrary...
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/5006/waikato-v-tasman-premiership-final/101?page=6
Here you see a perfect example of gracious losing - the previous page notes discussion of some contentious calls - though not by me.
Much like the Chiefs we died of self-inflicted wounds that night!
Depends on the circumstances. Wellington has been on the wrong side of of lopsided reffing and have been pissed off. Same with the AB
This game with a one sided penalty count and likewise yellow cards. And a badly missed forward pass. And also a close game. Fans from the losing side were always going to be annoyed
But if my team lose and the reffing is fair I just accept the better team won and move on.
In this game I thought the better team lost. Whether it was due to poor discipline or biased reffing I just don't know. But can understand why chiefs fabs are annoyed. It's good to see some strong feelings from the fans but some have gone too far. As NZ fans did with Barnes
Says the poster who has been saying for the last 3-4 years that the Crusaders have “ruined” Super Rugby. Hard to take you serious when you comment on Crusader games or threads.
I think we can kill the idea that the reffing was biased. There’s absolutely no evidence of that. Were things missed, you bet ya. That’s the nature of it and it isn’t going to change as long as we put humans in charge of a game that has laws that are open to interpretation from the guy with the whistle. The maul and breakdown are still subjective as it was back in the pre-professional days.
-
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Winger said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
In this game I thought the better team lost. Whether it was due to poor discipline or biased reffing I just don't know.
The better team on paper or the better team on the night?
See, I thought the Crusaders dominated the majority of the match - largely on the back of the Chiefs' ill-discipline, though we started much better and they looked rattled from the get go.
I thought we dominated the first half and might pay for leaving too many points out there. That looked somewhat likely in the first 25 minutes of the second half, when they got on top. But, the tide got turned again and we clearly had the best of the final 15 minutes.
The stats largely seem to back me up - we clearly won territory, possession and time in the opposition 22. We won the set piece because we smoked their lineout and scrums were largely even. Crucially, their discipline was terrible and given ALB's yellow has been upgraded to a red, they were lucky not to be punished a lot worse. That was the most costly reffing error of the night - far bigger impact than a missed forward pass.
With the massive advantage of being at home and with the Crusaders missing a bunch of frontline players - the Chiefs should be absolutely kicking themselves for blowing that game.
But, I don't think they were hard done by on the night.
Nah bro. It’s the vibe, we stole it.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Chiefs looked the better team despite playing almost half the game with 14 men.
McMillan won this contest, Crusaders had no answers on attack, their defense suffocated them, Chiefs created more opportunities & found more space with the ball. Crusaders scoring from those rolling mauls were inevitable while opposition down a forward, Crusaders looked mostly clueless while it was 15 v 15 (22 of their 25 points came when Chiefs down to 14).
Chiefs IMO were the better side for the majority of the game. This wasn't like the comprehensive dismantling of the Blues (mentality & tactically) at Eden Park last year, this title involved a significant element of luck, the Chiefs deserved this one and I really feel for Clayton and those departing players.
But Whitelock and co ruled supreme in the lineouts.
-
@nostrildamus said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Chiefs looked the better team despite playing almost half the game with 14 men.
McMillan won this contest, Crusaders had no answers on attack, their defense suffocated them, Chiefs created more opportunities & found more space with the ball. Crusaders scoring from those rolling mauls were inevitable while opposition down a forward, Crusaders looked mostly clueless while it was 15 v 15 (22 of their 25 points came when Chiefs down to 14).
Chiefs IMO were the better side for the majority of the game. This wasn't like the comprehensive dismantling of the Blues (mentality & tactically) at Eden Park last y ear, this title involved a significant element of luck, the Chiefs deserved this one and I really feel for Clayton and those departing players.
But Whitelock and co ruled supreme in the lineouts.
Yep, a few individuals saved Razor's skin, but it's safe to say McMillan won this one. Coming from a South Islander here.
The Crusaders got home via questionable officiating and some influential individuals, Whitelock doesn't play and Crusaders don't win.
Clayton and his Chiefs deserved this one, they were honestly the better team on the night, in my opinion, as much as it hurts to admit.
-
Wow, the urban myth of the singular importance of that forward pass being missed several phases prior to a try and to the Chiefs clearing their line and having a lineout restart at halfway prior to the try, just grows. They had a lineout at halfway that they then didn’t defend and then had a 50m try scored against them.
There are so many calls that could be reviewed in any game (Jacobsen stripping the ball) so the rules limiting a review to the try scoring movement seem very practical. I think they work well on balance giving us a flowing game and a heightened focus on reviewing try scoring action. But like anything they can be changed and improved upon if there is agreement.
The case of the review of Damien’s try was always going to happen because it was “in the try scoring movement”.
But in this the media and all their commentators have done their usual shit job by headlining “controversy” and not providing any balance. They really just stir the pot and generally just do a shit job of being analytical and reviewing games. Specifically I refer to all the ex rugby players on the dime who don’t seem to do their homework prior to talking. I wonder if they ever sit together and talk through games prior to being on TV? So they can reflect on what someone else has seen in the game that they missed - a professional approach to the job of providing commentary. Instead they just give emotional reaction stuff that plays to peoples prejudices. Then they sit back and tell the general public off for reacting when they have actively fanned the flames. They are the worst.
-
Oh, that is insightful, I am happy to agree with that. If the best players in the Crusaders team didn't play that night, the Crusaders probably would not have won.
-
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
-
@nostrildamus said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Oh, that is insightful, I am happy to agree with that. If the best players in the Crusaders team didn't play that night, the Crusaders probably would not have won.
It’s a fun game. If DMac doesn’t play, Crusaders win by 20.
-
-
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
Perhaps the Chiefs should've concentrated on keeping a full complement for the entirety of the fixture.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
Maybe if they hadn’t infringed the Crusaders would have scored prior. Using the existing rules the team with the most points wins.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
I think you meant complement. Given that, you are saying for those 3 yellow cards, 37.5% of the game (or for nearly all of it given ALB should have been given a red card), the Crusaders didn't look clueless.
I am afraid we have to consider discipline: the Chiefs made key mistakes and the Crusaders were ruthless in capitalizing on those mistakes and squeezing the Chiefs out of the game. That is how they typically play.
I'd have been happy if the Chiefs won, but they had their chances and their warnings, and they didn't change tack.
That shows even if their players individually may have been superior the team had a tactical or leadership flaw. -
I won’t and don’t blame the ref, but I do have a problem with the interpretation of the laws. The maul (especially stopping one) is a joke and that laws needs a reinterpretation soon.
All of that aside, had we kicked to the corner and held the ball instead of kicking for goal, we may have won that game. That’s not on the Saders, that’s on our game drivers who were still on the field.
Additionally, we played plenty of rugby in that game, so even though we lost, I don’t really mind that we lose to a team that can only really trouble us while we are down to 14. I don’t mean that in a bitchy way, just that I’m happy we could accumulate points 15 vs 15. If we had better discipline, we would have prevented the Saders getting theirs versus 14, so that’s a huge work-on for next year. They deserve their win; they did better at line out time and in the last 15 minutes.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Says the poster who has been saying for the last 3-4 years that the Crusaders have “ruined” Super Rugby. Hard to take you serious when you comment on Crusader games or threads.
No I haven't. I've said that there are 2 big issues with super rugby. One is that one team always wins = boring and predicable. I would feel the same if it was the Canes. But would be less vocal about it (the other of course is weak Aussie teams).
NZR could easily address this issue by making all teams pick up a bigger share of the ABs salary (with a bigger player budget to compensate). This would stop the top teams picking up the best young players as required. And the weaker team struggling to attract players. But it doesn't suit NZR to do this as their focus is 100% on the AB's. There must be other solutions too but NZR aren't interested. So NZR is to blame for this issue not the Crusaders. Your team can't be blamed for using a system to your advantage
-
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
The better team on paper or the better team on the night?
The better team during the season. And but for poor discipline (most likely this reason) and / or the ref being against them whether fair or not the better team on the night.
Similar to a team beating the Crusaders. It could be the Crusaders were overall the better team but say an injury to a key player and poor discipline (resulting in one yellow card) let them down.
-
@Canerbry said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
You can't blame the red card on BOK. What the TMO was thinking is a different matter!
To get some idea of the impact of the forward pass, recall that Jesters went from conceding try to penalty on half way. Even Bryn Hall on RPA acknowledged that (correctly I might add) saved the game for Jesters.
