Crusaders vs B&I Lions
-
Okay, my 2 cents. I haven't read most of the comments, because to my great surprise (well, not really), all these Ferners who have always expressed their dislike towards the Crusaders (remember the hatiest team thread?) suddenly come out of the woodworks to dish the Crusaders and individual players. The frustration about the Crusaders being unbeaten this Super Rugby season must be huge. And the frustration with some of their players not being selected in the AB squad. Really pathetic.
Anyway, I'll try to be more objective about the game.
I never expected a Crusaders win and thought this was - on paper- a much stronger Lions squad than in the previous game (I didn't join the pre-game criticism of the Lions line-up for a reason). This was a near test-strength Lions squad. While the Crusaders have an All Black tight 5 & openside, their backline had only Dagg, no longer fringe AB Tamanivalu and for the rest players in their early twenties, most in their first or 2nd year of SR. They have great skills, but no test experience. I'm still surprised that they are unbeaten in SR, so not really surprised that they were not coping in this game.
Mo'unga wasn't shit. He got slow ball from Hall which made it very easy for the Lions to advance with speed (because they didn't have to guess where the ball was going), giving Mo'unga very little to no time to kick the ball. He only kicked one ball out on the full. He also made some excellent kicks, including the two cross-kicks which were deliberately knocked-on, which went unpenalised (should have been yellow on both occasions). Mo'unga dropped one high ball, slipped a couple of times (like other players, wearing the wrong boots?) & conceded 1 turnover (but also won one); he made crucial tackles (his tackle percentage was 100%), one of which may have saved a try. He wasn't able to play his usual game, due to the Lions coming up very quickly; previews had predicted that the Lions would target him & that's what they did - very effectively.
A lot of what applies to Mo'unga regarding the Lions being very effective in shutting down the Crusaders attack early, applied basically to almost all backs. That didn't make those backs bad; the Lions were just better. A good learning point for Robertson for the rest of the SR season and for Hansen & co for the test matches.
I think the coaches should have named Bateman at 12, who has more experience and might have been able to cope better and Havili could have been more effective from fullback. I'd have preferred Dagg on the right wing and Tamanivalu on the left. I have been keeping an eye on Bridge and for at least the last three or four games, he has been missing crucial tackles. His good attack earlier in the season, which resulted in multiple tries, doesn't seem to work anymore and he is still weak on defence (he conceded most turnovers - 5 - tonight). I would have named him on the bench, or would have picked Mataele, who still has the same flaws, but is physically stronger.
About Dagg, I have a strong impression that he plays like he's trying to spare his knee. It's almost as if he's afraid to get injured again. After all, he has had these knee injuries before and basically that has kept him out of the RWC2015. Looks like a mental thing to me that will probably (hopefully) get right in the AB environment.
Goodhue was a stand-out in the back; he and Mo'unga were the only backs to get one clean break. Matt Todd got the third. That was all, 3 clean breaks. Crotty was dearly missed in the backline; he's a master organiser and communicator, and his absence might have been decisive. This only emphasises how important it is to get him right for AB duties; he's the best of all midfielders in this respect. His defence is also excellent.
The line-out was terrible, particularly early in the game. While Taylor had a few bad throws, the problems seemed more with guys in the line-out. Even always reliable Sam Whitelock missed now and then. Now I think of it, the whole squad looked nervous. Maybe that's the answer, I don't know.
Front row went fine. It was just the ref who was shit. He clearly doesn't get how the scrum works. He was also really inconsistent with rucks & mauls. The commentators said that it seemed that there was a language barrier and that that was why he didn't call 'ruck' or 'maul' or warnings to stay onside (as we're used to in SR). Some penalties came totally out of the blue. And some of those penalties resulted in penalty goals and gave the Lions the win.
The Crusaders defence, particularly close to their try line, worked pretty well, hence the zero tries. This game was lost on penalties and Farrell being good with his boot. It could easily have gone the other way if the Lions player who knocked the ball on deliberately close to his try line had received a well-deserved yellow card. We'll never know.
To be perfectly clear, the Lions deserved their win. Not because the Crusaders were bad though, but because the Lions were better.
Anyway, Blues fans have something to cheer about. The Blues beat a team (though with a weaker line-up) that beat the Crusaders. They're still not in the SR play-offs.
@Stargazer said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Okay, my 2 cents. I haven't read most of the comments, because to my great surprise (well, not really), all these Ferners who have always expressed their dislike towards the Crusaders (remember the hatiest team thread?) suddenly come out of the woodworks to dish the Crusaders and individual players. The frustration about the Crusaders being unbeaten this Super Rugby season must be huge. And the frustration with some of their players not being selected in the AB squad. Really pathetic.
Holy persecution complex, Batman!
Totally not a Crusaders fan though, right?
-
From a Lions perspective I was impressed with 1-10. The midfield and the back three less impressive. Way too many blown opportunities. For all the bluster about Te'o his skillset is still more akin to league backrower than rugby midfielder. Watson looked dangerous but then he also watched the ball bounce and he seems like not the most secure fullback around, would only consider him for the wing. Liam Williams too many mistakes and then a horrible option to chip when he did finally latch onto one.
Test team:
Vunipola
Owens
Cole
AWJ
Kruis
POM
SOB
FaletauMurray
Sexton
North
Henshaw
Joseph
Watson
PayneIt's a difficult selection, there isn't a lot between most of the players. A lack of really world class guys screaming pick me unfortunately. Cole and Owens come in to help out the scrum. In the outside backs you have to go for the guys most likely to finish an opportunity when they get it.
-
That was disappointing, but gives the tour back its edge.
Taufau was quite poor I thought, Hall was so unbelievably slow, Mounga couldn't cope with the (at times clearly offside) rush defence, Crotty was badly missed, and Bridge had a mare.
And the ref rode the Crusaders scrum (that non-penalty about 5 minutes before half time especially).
This is a great game for Hansen and co - they know they will be facing a Lions side where Murray can land a box-kick on a 5c piece, and good luck stealing Lions lineout ball.
AB backs will be better than the Crusaders though for sure.
-
Hall is from Auckland somewhere right? Mounga is from Canterbury? What are you guys talking about, obviously Mounga was great, Hall is to blame for his dropsies, poor options and awful kicks.
@Stargazer whinge all you want, but as said, don't get all persecuted because people dare criticise your crusaders. Myself and many others who've commented have no axe to grind, very weird you'd go off on one about that.
-
Whee!
-
Well done the Crusaders for taking my advice.
The ref made some "interesting" calls but I thought that the Lions deserved their win. BTW, Raynal was also the ref in NZ-Ireland game in Chicago last year.
I enjoyed the game despite the lack of tries and the numerous mistakes because it was intense. I always thought that the Crusaders might sneak it at the end with a late try but the LIons' defence was excellent and they forced the Crusaders into errors.
BBBR should be OK for the Samoan test as he could have played last night.
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Well done the Crusaders for taking my advice.
They read our comments yesterday and took one for the team ,
Thats all it was ..... no reason for people getting their knickers in a twist
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Gifford is reinforcing the stereotype about KIwis always blaming the ref for defeats.
He certainly is. I think it's a bit pathetic myself - yes the ref was a bit clueless at the scrum, and the offside lined seemed a bit optional at times, but twasn't the ref that cost the Crusaders the match.
TBH (hindsight is a great thing), we all should have foreseen this result - the Lions were always going to match the Crusaders pack, and if you do that you're talking about Bryn Hall vs Conor Murray, Owen Farrell vs Richie Mounga (which Lions fan told me Farrell is not a cert for the test side...), and a Crusaders backline with only one current AB.
In hindsight again, Bateman should have been at 12, with Dagg on the wing, Havili at FB, and Bridge in the stands.
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Gifford is reinforcing the stereotype about KIwis always blaming the ref for defeats.
He certainly is. I think it's a bit pathetic myself - yes the ref was a bit clueless at the scrum, and the offside lined seemed a bit optional at times, but twasn't the ref that cost the Crusaders the match.
TBH (hindsight is a great thing), we all should have foreseen this result - the Lions were always going to match the Crusaders pack, and if you do that you're talking about Bryn Hall vs Conor Murray, Owen Farrell vs Richie Mounga (which Lions fan told me Farrell is not a cert for the test side...), and a Crusaders backline with only one current AB.
In hindsight again, Bateman should have been at 12, with Dagg on the wing, Havili at FB, and Bridge in the stands.
@Billy-Tell yeah hindsight is a wonderful thing , but yeah thats it in a nutshell , didnt get the forward domination they are used to at super rugby level , and the backline fielded , collectively lacked threats
-
Ref was very poor, missed a lot both ways, but as we ought to have learnt from the past, take the refs inability to ref properly out by adapting, something McCaw was a master at
-
Of that Chch team I doubt if more than four will start first test. However, nothing for Lions to worry about as little difference between NZ Super rugby and ABs.
@pakman But stargazer said it was a near full strength side out there last night......
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Gifford is reinforcing the stereotype about KIwis always blaming the ref for defeats.
He certainly is. I think it's a bit pathetic myself - yes the ref was a bit clueless at the scrum, and the offside lined seemed a bit optional at times, but twasn't the ref that cost the Crusaders the match.
TBH (hindsight is a great thing), we all should have foreseen this result - the Lions were always going to match the Crusaders pack, and if you do that you're talking about Bryn Hall vs Conor Murray, Owen Farrell vs Richie Mounga (which Lions fan told me Farrell is not a cert for the test side...), and a Crusaders backline with only one current AB.
In hindsight again, Bateman should have been at 12, with Dagg on the wing, Havili at FB, and Bridge in the stands.
@Billy-Tell said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Gifford is reinforcing the stereotype about KIwis always blaming the ref for defeats.
He certainly is. I think it's a bit pathetic myself - yes the ref was a bit clueless at the scrum, and the offside lined seemed a bit optional at times, but twasn't the ref that cost the Crusaders the match.
And now Gregor Paul in the Herald is trying to blame the ref for the game, without quite saying he caused the Crusaders to lose.
I think the big issue is many Kiwis, and most Crusader fans, were pretty much sure the all-conquering Crusaders would have no trouble blowing away a weak Lions side.
And when their arrogance was punctured, they didn't like it. Someone had to be to blame -- and that left the ref as the only option.
-
Still feeling flat about that game. Pre tour I figured that was the best chance of a win outside of the AB's/NZM. After the Blues game I was looking forward to seeing a Super Rugby side cut loose.
At the risk of being a 'hater crawling out of the woodwork', that still feels bloody disappointing from the Crusaders... and it looked like Sam Whitelock felt similarly in his post match interview.
If there's any plus side, several All Blacks have had any possible slight hint of complacency for the Test series beaten out of them...
-
Okay, my 2 cents. I haven't read most of the comments, because to my great surprise (well, not really), all these Ferners who have always expressed their dislike towards the Crusaders (remember the hatiest team thread?) suddenly come out of the woodworks to dish the Crusaders and individual players. The frustration about the Crusaders being unbeaten this Super Rugby season must be huge. And the frustration with some of their players not being selected in the AB squad. Really pathetic.
Anyway, I'll try to be more objective about the game.
I never expected a Crusaders win and thought this was - on paper- a much stronger Lions squad than in the previous game (I didn't join the pre-game criticism of the Lions line-up for a reason). This was a near test-strength Lions squad. While the Crusaders have an All Black tight 5 & openside, their backline had only Dagg, no longer fringe AB Tamanivalu and for the rest players in their early twenties, most in their first or 2nd year of SR. They have great skills, but no test experience. I'm still surprised that they are unbeaten in SR, so not really surprised that they were not coping in this game.
Mo'unga wasn't shit. He got slow ball from Hall which made it very easy for the Lions to advance with speed (because they didn't have to guess where the ball was going), giving Mo'unga very little to no time to kick the ball. He only kicked one ball out on the full. He also made some excellent kicks, including the two cross-kicks which were deliberately knocked-on, which went unpenalised (should have been yellow on both occasions). Mo'unga dropped one high ball, slipped a couple of times (like other players, wearing the wrong boots?) & conceded 1 turnover (but also won one); he made crucial tackles (his tackle percentage was 100%), one of which may have saved a try. He wasn't able to play his usual game, due to the Lions coming up very quickly; previews had predicted that the Lions would target him & that's what they did - very effectively.
A lot of what applies to Mo'unga regarding the Lions being very effective in shutting down the Crusaders attack early, applied basically to almost all backs. That didn't make those backs bad; the Lions were just better. A good learning point for Robertson for the rest of the SR season and for Hansen & co for the test matches.
I think the coaches should have named Bateman at 12, who has more experience and might have been able to cope better and Havili could have been more effective from fullback. I'd have preferred Dagg on the right wing and Tamanivalu on the left. I have been keeping an eye on Bridge and for at least the last three or four games, he has been missing crucial tackles. His good attack earlier in the season, which resulted in multiple tries, doesn't seem to work anymore and he is still weak on defence (he conceded most turnovers - 5 - tonight). I would have named him on the bench, or would have picked Mataele, who still has the same flaws, but is physically stronger.
About Dagg, I have a strong impression that he plays like he's trying to spare his knee. It's almost as if he's afraid to get injured again. After all, he has had these knee injuries before and basically that has kept him out of the RWC2015. Looks like a mental thing to me that will probably (hopefully) get right in the AB environment.
Goodhue was a stand-out in the back; he and Mo'unga were the only backs to get one clean break. Matt Todd got the third. That was all, 3 clean breaks. Crotty was dearly missed in the backline; he's a master organiser and communicator, and his absence might have been decisive. This only emphasises how important it is to get him right for AB duties; he's the best of all midfielders in this respect. His defence is also excellent.
The line-out was terrible, particularly early in the game. While Taylor had a few bad throws, the problems seemed more with guys in the line-out. Even always reliable Sam Whitelock missed now and then. Now I think of it, the whole squad looked nervous. Maybe that's the answer, I don't know.
Front row went fine. It was just the ref who was shit. He clearly doesn't get how the scrum works. He was also really inconsistent with rucks & mauls. The commentators said that it seemed that there was a language barrier and that that was why he didn't call 'ruck' or 'maul' or warnings to stay onside (as we're used to in SR). Some penalties came totally out of the blue. And some of those penalties resulted in penalty goals and gave the Lions the win.
The Crusaders defence, particularly close to their try line, worked pretty well, hence the zero tries. This game was lost on penalties and Farrell being good with his boot. It could easily have gone the other way if the Lions player who knocked the ball on deliberately close to his try line had received a well-deserved yellow card. We'll never know.
To be perfectly clear, the Lions deserved their win. Not because the Crusaders were bad though, but because the Lions were better.
Anyway, Blues fans have something to cheer about. The Blues beat a team (though with a weaker line-up) that beat the Crusaders. They're still not in the SR play-offs.
@Stargazer said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Okay, my 2 cents. I haven't read most of the comments, because to my great surprise (well, not really), all these Ferners who have always expressed their dislike towards the Crusaders (remember the hatiest team thread?) suddenly come out of the woodworks to dish the Crusaders and individual players. The frustration about the Crusaders being unbeaten this Super Rugby season must be huge. And the frustration with some of their players not being selected in the AB squad. Really pathetic.
What a fucking bell-end of a comment.
Eeeiiits a persecution, I swear boss
-
@Billy-Tell said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Gifford is reinforcing the stereotype about KIwis always blaming the ref for defeats.
He certainly is. I think it's a bit pathetic myself - yes the ref was a bit clueless at the scrum, and the offside lined seemed a bit optional at times, but twasn't the ref that cost the Crusaders the match.
And now Gregor Paul in the Herald is trying to blame the ref for the game, without quite saying he caused the Crusaders to lose.
I think the big issue is many Kiwis, and most Crusader fans, were pretty much sure the all-conquering Crusaders would have no trouble blowing away a weak Lions side.
And when their arrogance was punctured, they didn't like it. Someone had to be to blame -- and that left the ref as the only option.
@Chester-Draws said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Billy-Tell said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Gifford is reinforcing the stereotype about KIwis always blaming the ref for defeats.
He certainly is. I think it's a bit pathetic myself - yes the ref was a bit clueless at the scrum, and the offside lined seemed a bit optional at times, but twasn't the ref that cost the Crusaders the match.
And now Gregor Paul in the Herald is trying to blame the ref for the game, without quite saying he caused the Crusaders to lose.
I think the big issue is many Kiwis, and most Crusader fans, were pretty much sure the all-conquering Crusaders would have no trouble blowing away a weak Lions side.
And when their arrogance was punctured, they didn't like it. Someone had to be to blame -- and that left the ref as the only option.
If the Blues play like that they get criticised and laughed at from all corners (and rightly so) and no-one would make a mention of the ref. Without trying to sound like a whinger, the Crusaders seem to be getting a free ride from the media here where they can't seem to admit that they just had a bad night at the office and that the Lions were far better than them.
Not trying to sound like a 'hater coming out of the woodwork', just a bit of consistency from these media clowns would be nice.
-
Ref was fine.
2 very strange scrum penalties aside.
2 bad calls in a game is nothing.
There are probably some the other way I didn't notice.
I'm not talking 50/50 quibbling here.
First 20 to 30 minutes. Poor little babies need a constant verbal feed telling them when to stop cheating. Instead of erring on the side of not cheating at all because he's giving you no clues.
-
Can't believe I'm going to say this BUT ....
Game needed more chip kicks. Lions were so flat all night and the saders never adjusted ... only with 2 mins to go did they try something different. Should have tried a few to make them adjust their defensive line in order to create gaps.
Lions had a basic game plan and executed it perfectly. Well played.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Billy-Tell said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
Gifford is reinforcing the stereotype about KIwis always blaming the ref for defeats.
He certainly is. I think it's a bit pathetic myself - yes the ref was a bit clueless at the scrum, and the offside lined seemed a bit optional at times, but twasn't the ref that cost the Crusaders the match.
And now Gregor Paul in the Herald is trying to blame the ref for the game, without quite saying he caused the Crusaders to lose.
I think the big issue is many Kiwis, and most Crusader fans, were pretty much sure the all-conquering Crusaders would have no trouble blowing away a weak Lions side.
And when their arrogance was punctured, they didn't like it. Someone had to be to blame -- and that left the ref as the only option.
If the Blues play like that they get criticised and laughed at from all corners (and rightly so) and no-one would make a mention of the ref. Without trying to sound like a whinger, the Crusaders seem to be getting a free ride from the media here where they can't seem to admit that they just had a bad night at the office and that the Lions were far better than them.
Not trying to sound like a 'hater coming out of the woodwork', just a bit of consistency from these media clowns would be nice.
