Crusaders v Blues
-
Looking at the Crusaders starting line-up:
1 - first choice/AB
2 - first choice/AB
3 - first choice/AB
4 - first choice/AB
5 - first choice/AB
6 - first choice
7 - injury replacement
8 - injury replacement
9 - rotating duo
10 - injury replacement
11 - injury replacement
12 - first choice/AB
13 - injury replacement (and a late one, too)
14 - injury replacement
15 - injury replacementVery heavy at the front, very light at the back.
@Stargazer said in Crusaders v Blues:
Looking at the Crusaders starting line-up:
1 - first choice/AB - 28
2 - first choice/AB - 25
3 - first choice/AB - 29
4 - first choice/AB - 23
5 - first choice/AB - 28
6 - first choice - 25
7 - injury replacement - 26
8 - injury replacement - 26
9 - rotating duo - 25
10 - injury replacement - 21
11 - injury replacement - 21
12 - first choice/AB - 28
13 - injury replacement (and a late one, too) - 21
14 - injury replacement - 20
15 - injury replacement - 22Very heavy at the front, very light at the back.
It's even clearer if you look at their age!
-
@KiwiMurph a player can get a whole lot better in 2 years. Hunt wasn't even starting 10 for Ta$man last year. Feeny had the Auckland backline humming
-
What's Tom Coventry up to? He's an expert at getting the most out of his packs. Things like maul defense is his bread and butter.
-
@KiwiMurph a player can get a whole lot better in 2 years. Hunt wasn't even starting 10 for Ta$man last year. Feeny had the Auckland backline humming
@muddyriver Hickey still had an average season despite the luxury ride he got that season. Auckland fans were calling for him to be dropped - for example he cost Auckland home advantage in Eden Park loss to Canterbury during regular season. Hunt barely got a run.
-
@KiwiMurph a player can get a whole lot better in 2 years. Hunt wasn't even starting 10 for Ta$man last year. Feeny had the Auckland backline humming
@muddyriver said in Crusaders v Blues:
@KiwiMurph a player can get a whole lot better in 2 years. Hunt wasn't even starting 10 for Ta$man last year. Feeny had the Auckland backline humming
Hunt was pretty good for Auckland off the bench. I wouldn't hold it against Hunt not starting for Ta$man, Marty Banks is kind of like a superstar at ITM Cup level.
Although our backline was humming, Hickey was atrocious(him and his brother) that year. I've never seen a 10 look so average behind such a dominant pack, especially at ITM Cup level.
(Editors note: dominant, not dominate. Common Fern grammatical error.)
-
@muddyriver Hickey still had an average season despite the luxury ride he got that season. Auckland fans were calling for him to be dropped - for example he cost Auckland home advantage in Eden Park loss to Canterbury during regular season. Hunt barely got a run.
@KiwiMurph Yep. Hickey was obviously not up to it, and Hunt showed some class every time he came on. Jeez the Auckland forwards were good that year.
Same organisation that appointed Nick White. Who ruined the Auckland pack.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@Dice said in Crusaders v Blues:
Tom Coventry
New North Harbour coach.
Oh yeah, I know that, I just want him to pop in and give us a helping hand.
-
@muddyriver said in Crusaders v Blues:
@KiwiMurph a player can get a whole lot better in 2 years. Hunt wasn't even starting 10 for Ta$man last year. Feeny had the Auckland backline humming
Hunt was pretty good for Auckland off the bench. I wouldn't hold it against Hunt not starting for Ta$man, Marty Banks is kind of like a superstar at ITM Cup level.
Although our backline was humming, Hickey was atrocious(him and his brother) that year. I've never seen a 10 look so average behind such a dominant pack, especially at ITM Cup level.
(Editors note: dominant, not dominate. Common Fern grammatical error.)
-
I did not say win the competition. I said ensure competence. You have created a strawman there.
NZ Rugby could not be more different to the NRL. There are many franchises in Sydney, not one. Players are centrally contracted by the NZRU. They have near total control of everything. They cannot abdicate responsibility in their largest market.
If they want to keep losing ground to soccer in Auckland, they are going the right way.
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
I did not say win the competition. I said ensure competence. You have created a strawman there.
NZ Rugby could not be more different to the NRL. There are many franchises in Sydney, not one. Players are centrally contracted by the NZRU. They have near total control of everything. They cannot abdicate responsibility in their largest market.
If they want to keep losing ground to soccer in Auckland, they are going the right way.
They are competent though. They are probably the 7th or 8th best team in the competition. You haven't backed up your assertion that they aren't competent.
-
@KiwiMurph Yep. Hickey was obviously not up to it, and Hunt showed some class every time he came on. Jeez the Auckland forwards were good that year.
Same organisation that appointed Nick White. Who ruined the Auckland pack.
-
@Stargazer said in Crusaders v Blues:
Looking at the Crusaders starting line-up:
1 - first choice/AB - 28
2 - first choice/AB - 25
3 - first choice/AB - 29
4 - first choice/AB - 23
5 - first choice/AB - 28
6 - first choice - 25
7 - injury replacement - 26
8 - injury replacement - 26
9 - rotating duo - 25
10 - injury replacement - 21
11 - injury replacement - 21
12 - first choice/AB - 28
13 - injury replacement (and a late one, too) - 21
14 - injury replacement - 20
15 - injury replacement - 22Very heavy at the front, very light at the back.
It's even clearer if you look at their age!
@Stargazer said in Crusaders v Blues:
@Stargazer said in Crusaders v Blues:
Looking at the Crusaders starting line-up:
It's even clearer if you look at their age!
And even more so if you look at the changes made around halftime when we were down heavily.
Well, actually, a different point, but crikey, the second/third string did well.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
I did not say win the competition. I said ensure competence. You have created a strawman there.
NZ Rugby could not be more different to the NRL. There are many franchises in Sydney, not one. Players are centrally contracted by the NZRU. They have near total control of everything. They cannot abdicate responsibility in their largest market.
If they want to keep losing ground to soccer in Auckland, they are going the right way.
They are competent though. They are probably the 7th or 8th best team in the competition. You haven't backed up your assertion that they aren't competent.
@hydro11 Are you kidding me? They are one from four. They have not made the playoffs since 2011. Their last five seasons have been 12th, 10th, 10th, 14th, and 11th. They have the richest and largest player pool in the best rugby country in the history of the world. They have gone from dominance to nothing since Henry left 14 years ago. The case for incompetence could not be clearer!
This is yet another completely bogus argument from you.
-
@Tim Nick white was the forwards coach that year....
@muddyriver Christ. What the hell happened?
-
-
@hydro11 Are you kidding me? They are one from four. They have not made the playoffs since 2011. Their last five seasons have been 12th, 10th, 10th, 14th, and 11th. They have the richest and largest player pool in the best rugby country in the history of the world. They have gone from dominance to nothing since Henry left 14 years ago. The case for incompetence could not be clearer!
This is yet another completely bogus argument from you.
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@hydro11 Are you kidding me? They are one from four. They have not made the playoffs since 2011. Their last five seasons have been 12th, 10th, 10th, 14th, and 11th. They have the richest and largest player pool in the best rugby country in the history of the world. They have gone from dominance to nothing since Henry left 14 years ago. The case for incompetence could not be clearer!
This is yet another completely bogus argument from you.
They are the 8th best team out of 18 in 2016 and you are saying they are incompetent. Of the 7 teams better than them, 4 of them were New Zealand teams. I think the NZRU should have been more concerned over all those seasons when the Highlanders were terrible.
The player pool is irrelevant. Many players from Auckland are doing very well playing for other teams. Fantastic players are still coming out of the region - the Blues just can't turn those players into a championship winning team.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@hydro11 Are you kidding me? They are one from four. They have not made the playoffs since 2011. Their last five seasons have been 12th, 10th, 10th, 14th, and 11th. They have the richest and largest player pool in the best rugby country in the history of the world. They have gone from dominance to nothing since Henry left 14 years ago. The case for incompetence could not be clearer!
This is yet another completely bogus argument from you.
They are the 8th best team out of 18 in 2016 and you are saying they are incompetent. Of the 7 teams better than them, 4 of them were New Zealand teams. I think the NZRU should have been more concerned over all those seasons when the Highlanders were terrible.
The player pool is irrelevant. Many players from Auckland are doing very well playing for other teams. Fantastic players are still coming out of the region - the Blues just can't turn those players into a championship winning team.
@hydro11 They were 11th (despite what your reddit detectives say) and bottom of the NZ conference. Again and again, and again. They have uniquely underperformed among NZ teams. I have established that clearly. To ignore that means that you cannot argue in good faith. I will repeat - 12th, 10th, 10th, 14th, and 11th.
Player pools are not irrelevant. If they are irrelevant - the early access, the opportunity to evaluate and coach - then what is relevant?
You have just said "Fantastic players are still coming out of the region - the Blues just can't turn those players into a championship winning team." What could be a clearer indicator of an underperforming organisation.
-
@hydro11 They finished 11th on points, and bottom of the NZ competition. I have established their incompetence.
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@hydro11 They finished 11th on points, and bottom of the NZ competition. I have established their incompetence.
You haven't addressed what I was saying at all. The only reason they finished 11th is because they have a tough draw and lost to other New Zealand teams. Besides, even 11 out of 18 isn't that bad. The NZRU isn't concerned because one franchise loses to other New Zealand franchises. The NZRU doesn't care which New Zealand team wins a derby because they have to be impartial. They care that we beat the foreign teams.
I also don't know where you get the idea that money is the Blues problem. They have far more All Blacks in their squad than the Highlanders. Luatua hasn't always shone at Super Rugby and Piutau wouldn't have made much difference tonight.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@hydro11 They finished 11th on points, and bottom of the NZ competition. I have established their incompetence.
You haven't addressed what I was saying at all. The only reason they finished 11th is because they have a tough draw and lost to other New Zealand teams. Besides, even 11 out of 18 isn't that bad. The NZRU isn't concerned because one franchise loses to other New Zealand franchises. The NZRU doesn't care which New Zealand team wins a derby because they have to be impartial. They care that we beat the foreign teams.
I also don't know where you get the idea that money is the Blues problem. They have far more All Blacks in their squad than the Highlanders. Luatua hasn't always shone at Super Rugby and Piutau wouldn't have made much difference tonight.
@hydro11 Are you fucking kidding me? Luatua was brilliant last season for us. Piutau would've been devistating from the back tonight. He wouldn't have made a difference vs. Collins against that Crusaders backline. Do you read your own posts? Come on dude ...
I suppose that it's no loss that Faumaina is going as well.
-
@hydro11 They were 11th (despite what your reddit detectives say) and bottom of the NZ conference. Again and again, and again. They have uniquely underperformed among NZ teams. I have established that clearly. To ignore that means that you cannot argue in good faith. I will repeat - 12th, 10th, 10th, 14th, and 11th.
Player pools are not irrelevant. If they are irrelevant - the early access, the opportunity to evaluate and coach - then what is relevant?
You have just said "Fantastic players are still coming out of the region - the Blues just can't turn those players into a championship winning team." What could be a clearer indicator of an underperforming organisation.
@Tim said in Crusaders v Blues:
@hydro11 They were 11th (despite what your reddit detectives say) and bottom of the NZ conference. Again and again, and again. They have uniquely underperformed among NZ teams. I have established that clearly. To ignore that means that you cannot argue in good faith. I will repeat - 12th, 10th, 10th, 14th, and 11th.
Player pools are not irrelevant. If they are irrelevant - the early access, the opportunity to evaluate and coach - then what is relevant?
You have just said "Fantastic players are still coming out of the region - the Blues just can't turn those players into a championship winning team." What could be a clearer indicator of an underperforming organisation.
Sure the Blues are underperforming. I don't know how giving them more resources than everyone else would encourage them to actually make use of what they have. You are saying the Blues should get more money to spend on players because they are underperforming.
