SupeRugby Final 2011: Queensland Reds V Canterbury Crusaders

[MajorlyRagerly]

Barbarian - yes, that's exactly my point. Arguing over techincalities, if anything I suppose.

Zeno - apologies if you find bullshit / crap words of an internet tough guy. I'll know for next time when I'm dealing with you posts, to sugar coat things I disagree with, sweetie (to quote yourself).

God knows some NZ teams could learn a thing or two from the reds on not giving away penalties.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

The worst non-penalty was in the 80th minute when I was sure the Crusaders were going to run 80m to score a try and win. Anyways, it is was on the sideline at about halfway and one of the Crusaders blatantly played the ball on the ground that enables them to retain possession. Potentially could have cost the Reds the title.

 

[qwerty51]

Was that Brad Thorn? I remember him offloading once on the ground (didn't go to ground with the ball so he played the ball on the ground) but don't think it was in the 80th minute.

 

[barbarian]

But it didn't did it. Let it go.

 

[tigerland12]

How about we conclude this bickering by watching this video over and over again. I still have a giant grin on my face!

[video=youtube;zygPtkOzSQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zygPtkOzSQo[/video]

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Look, I thought, after watching the replay again yesterday that Lawrence had a poor game and could have given a million penalties. It didn't affect the result. End of story.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

You have to feel for Brad Thorn. While I'm bloody happy he didn't score, it would be hard watching that replay back in Christchurch when they analyse the game, half the team outside him and 1 defender, going himself and being held up.

On a side note, that after match interview he gave was pure class.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

But it didn't did it. Let it go.

True, it did not, but it was so blatant that I was amazed it was not penalised.

 

[Zeno]

Zeno - apologies if you find bullshit / crap words of an internet tough guy. I'll know for next time when I'm dealing with you posts, to sugar coat things I disagree with, sweetie (to quote yourself).

There's nothing to apologise for; I'm fine with that sort of language. Just accept that you can't call facts 'bullshit'.

 

[Jnor]

Im sure theres a simple answer out there but I first thought in the semi who the hell was genias replacement if he went down injured?

 

[Godfrey]

Ian Prior.

 

[Galloper]

Others have touched on the Reds game plan, but a mate of mine was talking to Matt Taylor (a good mate of his) after the game and Taylor said that the Reds game plan boiled down to one rule: No scrums! Whatever you do, avoid a scrum at all costs!

I guess that explains all the seemingly excessive box and midfield kicks, where even a loosehead scrum was seen as a liability (as was shown a few times in the second half).

 

[Lee Grant]

It was not so much the idea of the box kicks that grated, it was their execution. Genia is excellent in most things he does but his box kicking is not one of those things.

 

[chequebalance]

Watch Davies after the whistle he goes to jump on the back of Quade but just ends up jumping in the air and then looking for another group hahaha

 

[Ignoto]

I guess that explains all the seemingly excessive box and midfield kicks, where even a loosehead scrum was seen as a liability (as was shown a few times in the second half).

I don't think that explains it at all.

Doing the contestable bombs would lead to more scrums as you're relying on the opposition; A) Knocking the ball on or B) Your guys winning the contest in whatever means ie catching the ball or knocking it back

Either way you look at it, kicking the ball in that fashion increases the chance of the ball being knocked on and resulting in a scrum.

If they were wanting to not have scrums, they would have been better of kicking for the line and putting pressure on the Crusaders line out which was struggling early on.

 

[TOCC]

I don't think that explains it at all.

Doing the contestable bombs would lead to more scrums as you're relying on the opposition; A) Knocking the ball on or B) Your guys winning the contest in whatever means ie catching the ball or knocking it back

Either way you look at it, kicking the ball in that fashion increases the chance of the ball being knocked on and resulting in a scrum.

If they were wanting to not have scrums, they would have been better of kicking for the line and putting pressure on the Crusaders line out which was struggling early on.

2 problems, the Cruaders back 3 counter attack is deadly.. And more importantly, no team in Super Rugby will ever win a territory kicking competition with the Crusaders..

DC will make you look like a rookie every time

 

[Jnor]

Ian Prior.

Thanks, I guess there's a reason no-one's ever seen him - did Genia play about 99.99999999% of all min this season?

As an aside, did anyone notice when Ioane scored Horwill was second in and looked like he was giving him a mouthful for his shower celebration - I remember thinking that would look really stupid if they lost.

 

[Brumbies Guy]

As an aside, did anyone notice when Ioane scored Horwill was second in and looked like he was giving him a mouthful for his shower celebration - I remember thinking that would look really stupid if they lost.

I saw it, but took it as more of a "the job isn't over yet" reminder from Horwill as he looked to engage a number of the players in the huddle and walking back to their half, not just Digby.

 

[chequebalance]

good captaining.

 

[tigerland12]

Digby obviously couldn't help himself, he was saying through the week he wouldn't do it if he scored.
As a crowd member I did enjoy it, but it comes off as a pretty arrogant, but it's the type of entertainment the Reds bring, bit of character to the team.