Crusaders v Reds Prelim 1

[Sidbarret]

Random thoughts.

The crusaders were brilliant. Their tactics were spot on (and if wasn't they have through the season shown that there are a plan b and c available). Their forward runners in the midfield did a great job of bending the line, but the most impressive thing was how they always forced defenders to make defensive decisions. If you force your opposition to make enough decisions, eventually they are going to make the wrong one.

The crusaders really deserve better fans though. This was a knockout game played in a pretty small stadium and they couldn't get anywhere near sell-out. The less said about the fluffies who showed the better.

As good as the Crusaders were, so poor were the Reds. Everything the crusaders did right the Reds did wrong. In attack they simply recycled the ball slowly, meaning that the Crusaders never had to make any defensive decision and could line up and smash the static "runners". And while on the topic of smashing and runners, I can't recall a single dominant tackle from a player wearing white.

It is damning indictment of the red brain trust that they never changed tactics. It might not have worked any better, but they should have tried running more plays of ten to at least spread the crusader defenders a little thinner.

 

[Sully]

What? Why? The reds were very average mate. Get over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Yes they were but your constant baiting is wearing very thin with the people who make decisions around here. It's probably time to clean your act up.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Good on him!

 

[Shiggins]

Yes they were but your constant baiting is wearing very thin with the people who make decisions around here. It's probably time to clean your act up.

What are you talking about? I just said that the reds played very poorly and the force could of probably done better. If you consider that bait that's not my problem. I in no way meant it to be like that. I'm just pointing out how disappointed I was with their performance. I was gutted they lost mate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Slim 293]

What are you talking about? I just said that the reds played very poorly and the force could of probably done better.

I guess we'll find out next year when 4th plays 13th............

 

[Shiggins]

I guess we'll find out next year when 4th plays 13th....

We already found out this year . Twice actually. I'm pretty sure the force won 1 against the reds in qld and that's right they beat the crusaders as well. Lol. It's rare I can have a win when talking about this stuff. Score! Lol

It's not about that anyway. I was just as angry, pissed off and depressed as every reds fan on sat night. Why am I the only guy who can say the reds played badly and cop all this come back for it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Athilnaur]

I think sober reflection will say we paid the piper for the Lions series, we had a very strong lead in, and now we have some flattened players physically and mentally. The Brumbies recovered, but bear in mind the Reds were also short a lot of crucial players.

The good news is that the Lions series was an ideal forge to test players after a huge development year in 2012. The bad news is we're a bit burnt out. My only regret is the huge loss in test three, we are paying a heavy price now, and will in the future. It was a major blunder.

 

[daz]

What? Why? The reds were very average mate. Get over it.

I agree that the Reds were very average, but that is not what you said in your initial post.

Happy to get over it. All I need is one more post like that and I will get over it in a big way.

Just settle with the hyperbole, the refs and the outright trolling, please.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Have noticed lately (only lately? I'm not sure) that Dagg is playing first receiver a lot. When he does, he invariably sends the play wide and usually puts someone into a gap. Scary stuff, that if it's not Carter running the backline it's Dagg and he seems to do just as good a job. For instance, it was Dagg who put Carter away for his try on the weekend, and it was him at first receiver who created the initial line break for one of Marshall's (?) tries.

Would like to see Jesse Mogg play a similar role at the Brumbies. ATM he seems to run too much himself when he comes in at first receiver, however a couple of little grubbers have earned tries through the season. Think he could develop a Dagg game with time.

 

[Bullrush]

I think sober reflection will say we paid the piper for the Lions series, we had a very strong lead in, and now we have some flattened players physically and mentally. The Brumbies recovered, but bear in mind the Reds were also short a lot of crucial players.

The good news is that the Lions series was an ideal forge to test players after a huge development year in 2012. The bad news is we're a bit burnt out. My only regret is the huge loss in test three, we are paying a heavy price now, and will in the future. It was a major blunder.

I think the whole Lions Tour excuse is pretty weak. Didn't NZ and SA play 3 Tests as well? Yes there was 2 weeks where they didn't play but it's not like these guys don't know each other. They just played 15-odd Rounds together. The Reds were slightly above average most of the season and they got found out in the Finals - it's a simple as that.

 

[FrankLind]

Have noticed lately (only lately? I'm not sure) that Dagg is playing first receiver a lot. When he does, he invariably sends the play wide and usually puts someone into a gap. Scary stuff, that if it's not Carter running the backline it's Dagg and he seems to do just as good a job. For instance, it was Dagg who put Carter away for his try on the weekend.

There was talk on the Fern a few years back about developing Dagg as a first five. (maybe only for a few weeks) I think he needs a bit more space personally, but he definitely has some level of ability as first receiver.

 

[Dan54]

He actually played a couple of games for Hawkes Bay at 10. I was one who thought we should try him at 10 in ABs, but then Cruden etc came along, and I knew it was a dumb idea!!

 

[Athilnaur]

Bullrush, to me it is a reason, not an excuse. You only had to watch Horwill and Genia to see they were playing sub par. Key Brumby Wallabies were also flat - Moore notably, Mowen also. The Lions Tour took it out of them physically and more importantly mentally, end of as far as I am concerned. It was also the reason (one I don't recall you objecting to...) that the Aussie conference did well in the Super Rugby leading into the internationals.

I suggest you pull back on the excuse bullshit, an excuse is something impliedly made up to justify a failure, a reason is an identified factor that influenced the outcome. No one is or has made excuses for the Reds loss. No one is saying the Crusaders didn't deserve the win, or that the only reason the Reds played so poorly was the tour. That said, anyone who can't recognise the Lions series had an impact on Wallabies players fronting up n R20 and Sf1 is in my opinion utterly failing to recognise sports athletes are finite resources ie human.

But hey, opinions we all have em. I stand by mine.

 

[Shiggins]

I agree that the Reds were very average, but that is not what you said in your initial post.

Happy to get over it. All I need is one more post like that and I will get over it in a big way.

Just settle with the hyperbole, the refs and the outright trolling, please.

Refs? I didn't mention a ref. your making things up. I'm not trolling mate


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Shiggins]

He actually played a couple of games for Hawkes Bay at 10. I was one who thought we should try him at 10 in ABs, but then Cruden etc came along, and I knew it was a dumb idea!!

And cruden has matured immensely the last year and a half. I used to think if carter went down the all blacks were in huge trouble. That's not the case anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bullrush]

Bullrush, to me it is a reason, not an excuse. You only had to watch Horwill and Genia to see they were playing sub par. Key Brumby Wallabies were also flat - Moore notably, Mowen also. The Lions Tour took it out of them physically and more importantly mentally, end of as far as I am concerned. It was also the reason (one I don't recall you objecting to.) that the Aussie conference did well in the Super Rugby leading into the internationals.

I suggest you pull back on the excuse bullshit, an excuse is something impliedly made up to justify a failure, a reason is an identified factor that influenced the outcome. No one is or has made excuses for the Reds loss. No one is saying the Crusaders didn't deserve the win, or that the only reason the Reds played so poorly was the tour. That said, anyone who can't recognise the Lions series had an impact on Wallabies players fronting up n R20 and Sf1 is in my opinion utterly failing to recognise sports athletes are finite resources ie human.

But hey, opinions we all have em. I stand by mine.

Again, SA and NZ also had Tests during the same period and there were players who backed up into Super Rugby so there wasn't a massive difference between the Wallaby players and the ABs or the Boks.

I didn't hear too many people saying that the reason Aussie players played well before the Lions was because of the Lions either.......but it's a strange notion. It's almost like you're saying that the Lions Tour was Getafix's magic potion before the tour and kryponite afterwards?!?

To me, it is an excuse for certain players not playing well because the implication is that those players had to overcome a lot more than their counter-parts to be at the same standard.

But as you say, we all have opinions...

 

[Bon]

Maybe a Lions tour with all the hyperbole is more mentally draining? The French series was both low key and predictable.

 

[Dan54]

I actually think Bullrush, there could be credence to Alhi's thoughts. It not an excuse, but it wouldn't surprise me if one or two players were a little flat. Really also believe with Saders playing like they did it would of been a comprehensive touch up anyway. You would always wonder if Genia was out of sorts because the Saders just pressured him or he slightly flat, or combination of both. Horwill and Simmons to me were always going to struggle, as Whitelock and Romano are at moment the best locking combination at this level, and are capable of playing the very confrontational game they did very well, very similar to how Lions whipped them in 3rd test.
As Althi says not really an excuse as perhaps part of the reason!!

 

[Scoey]

Yeah I don't think anyone is offering up excuses. We were smacked and it's been said by all and sundry. I think even if we'd played well it might have been closer but I don't think we would've prevailed. I think people are genuinely wondering why the Reds were as ordinary as they were and I think it's certainly plausible that the players were feeling somewhat flat after the Lions Tour. I certainly don't think it's the only reason though - not by a long shot.

I also think it's foolish to say that the AB's and Springboks Test Series' were equally as draining on the players of the respective regions as the Lions Tour was on the Wallabies.

EDIT: I also meant to add that quite a lot of people were actually speculating that the AUS S15 teams were doing as well as they were leading up to the Lions tour because of the impending Tour, Bullrush. Many on this site, commentators of the game and even Robbie Deans in one interview I remember.

 

[hawktrain]

Have noticed lately (only lately? I'm not sure) that Dagg is playing first receiver a lot. When he does, he invariably sends the play wide and usually puts someone into a gap. Scary stuff, that if it's not Carter running the backline it's Dagg and he seems to do just as good a job. For instance, it was Dagg who put Carter away for his try on the weekend, and it was him at first receiver who created the initial line break for one of Marshall's (?) tries.

That's probably my favourite thing about the Crusaders' style: all of their backs can slot in anywhere. In most of their games, every single Crusaders back will play first receiver, and they can all do it well, even the wingers. They have no pure hit-up merchants who can't pass and they benefit from that. Great example was Carter's try vs Reds where a few of the outside backs spread the ball out and eventually it was a winger (Guildford) passing outside for his first five to score out wide. It's great to watch.