Five-star showing from superb 'Saders

kiwieire says...

liewehexie

Firstly Sorry for misreading your comment about Ab's vz France Qf with french ref as you having a go at walsh.

I was wrong about Steve being fired, he retired after a certain incident at a conference. But he is employed by the Australia Rugby Board therefore respresents them as a ref.

To your comments regarding the crusaders having kiwi refs for all their matches bar one while you correct I think you may have missed a few small things.

Firstly the crusaders have had only 2 away matches this season both against Nz sides the blues and highlanders. Marius Jonker was the ref for the Highlanders so no kiwi ref there.

Their other 3 matches were all considered home matches since they were meant played in Christchurch, but the crusaders are homeless at the moment. You can check the fixtures list on this website or the super rugby site if you want.

So They did have all kiwi refs for their home(if you want to count Steve Walsh) but home refs for super rugby matches have been used for the past 2 seasons, in fact Mark Lawerence reffed the Waratahs vs Stormers semi final last year in South Africa.

So please have a think about my points and I look forward to your reply.

Posted 13:57 31st March 2011

trappa says...

really enjoying the banter here...One of the justifications that keeps coming up for NH sides to not play the expansive game, is that of weather conditions. Now correct me if Im wrong Kiwis, but playing all my junior rugby in NZ, I was constantly playing in wet weather. Moreover, now here in Oz there were times of playing in near cyclonic weather. Im not denying that weather can play a big part, my point is that running rugby is largely to do with culture and confidence, which in turn builds skills.

Posted 01:06 30th March 2011

Sillysonofa says...

@ Kdog - While true that the Super Rugby franchises pull players from other domestic regions (apart from in Australia where there isn't really an established domestic competition of note), you forget that the teams in the Heineken Cup assemble squads by acquiring the best players, not only in Europe, but from all over the world. These aren't just any players, they are often some of the best in their position in their respective countries. In addition to this, the teams that compete in the Heineken Cup aren't just any teams, they are the teams which have competed at the top end of their domestic competitions, and normally in the Heineken Cup, the previous seasons. Big clubs with the pedigree, financial ability and year-on-year performance to draw and assemble the best squads. I think these two competitions are absolutely comparable in that they are the best teams containing the best players pitted against each other.

The formats differ and so do the mindsets of the coaches, players, ref's, administrators, etc. This all makes for a different spectacle. I enjoy both. I love the balls to the wall style of running rugby employed in the South. I love the huge, tribal, blood and guts clashes of the North. They're different and that's what makes this game so awesome. There are so many facets to the game and so many different ways of playing the game that could all lead to victory or defeat.

It would be a bit rubbish if everyone played the same way day-in-day out. For one thing this forum would be really boring to read. We can't have that! I don't agreed with the guys, and dare I say girls (?), here who completely rag other nations. That's a little silly really. But the debate around the various forms of the game is interesting and almost as entertaining as the game itself. There's no right answer, just a different one.

Posted 09:50 29th March 2011

rugbylover says...

I just want to add ¿ for the benefit of my fellow countrymen - the glories of the B&I Lions whose displays have been synonymous with all that is great in running rugby with powerful ball-winning [and using] forwards. The 1955 Lions in SA [before my time ] and again in 1974 ¿ heard of them Carpelone? In the meantime Carwyn James with a magnificent side showed the kiwis a new form of rugby ¿ which they adopted forthwith.

I sincerely hope that the current bashem-smashem style SA side doesn¿t prevail. Oz certainly. Perhaps France will have a resurgence and destroy NZ ¿ again!

Posted 08:07 29th March 2011

carpelone says...

@ rolf

Your guess is absolutely correct, they played Smit tighthead, which I thought was disrespectul. I can not see Smit making the Bok's starting XV and this would have negative impact in the leadership on the pitch.

Posted 22:16 28th March 2011

rugbylover says...

............let's put this into perspective. This was a Super15 game. It was not an international. Moreover, it was not a WRC match, let alone a final.

My point is that when the stakes are higher the win-at-all costs mentality comes out, & rugby union running football disappears - look at the stats for the last dire event.

IF the Crusaders [or the Sharks] played their game-style against an England XV who, under Martin Johnson, are trying to do just that, I suspect that the Crusaders might prevail. Score more points than the opposition & you¿ll win.

But IF MJ decided it was win-at-all-costs it might well be a different matter. It takes two teams to PLAY the game - & WHEN they do it must thrill Mr Webb-Ellis to his fingernails. To have seen soaring SA three-quarter lines with a fullback into the line or earlier [anyone remember Ken Scotland?] or the sheer speed & beauty of Christian Cullen, the power of Jonah Lomu the incisive running of Matt Burke or Rory Underwood ¿ get the picture? Great forward play ¿ by athletes ¿ playing a game where the idea is to pick up the ball and run with it..............

Of course, the climate [both the weather & the ¿attitude¿] has an enormous influence on how the game is played.

The NZers keep inventing the game [followed swiftly by the Aussies who always ran the ball, & less swiftly by Saffa] ¿ the IRB keeps changing the rules.

Whether or not those pesky Kiwis can pull it off in September/October remains the $60m question. For myself, I shall be there [¿as usual¿ I'm pleased to say] as I was at Twickenham, & I just hope that whoever wins it ¿ does so in the traditions AND STYLE the All Blacks evince. Let's just hope the NZers have the courage [in the face of almost unbelievable pressure] to win and do it ¿their way¿ &, if not, may it be a side that actually plays even more adventurous, running rugby.

Posted 21:24 28th March 2011

kiwieire says...

@liewehexie

While Steve Walsh is a Nz'er, he was fired by the NZRFU a couple of seasons ago and is currently employed by the Australian Rugby Union so in the eyes of Sanzar he was a neutral ref.

And while I agree with you Walsh did miss a few things(he wouldn't my favourite ref) I don't think he was as one sided as you say.

And I can think of a few games last super 14 season where SA teams had SA refs for home matches against NZ and Aus sides where the same complaints of biased reffing like your's were made. so I guess what come around goes around and refs are only human as you know.

Posted 20:45 28th March 2011

Phill_Moore says...

@Sillysonofa, excellent comments and stats. It puts to much needed rest the illusion of Heineken Cup defenses being tighter than Super Rugby.

The points against are statistically the same in both competitions, so it's the attack that's different, and we all know which attack is better, and incidentally better to watch as well...

Also, the North vs. South debate is pointless, because the result is pretty clear, especially at international level. All 3 big SH sides have clear winning records against all NH sides. The NH has been "almost catching up" for about 100 years now... This is not SH snobbery, just look at the hard cold stats, it's a simple fact.

At club level it could be closer actually, since the richer NH clubs are also star-studded sides, and also full of ... erm, SH players ;)

Seriously, wake up and smell the coffee... but if the NH people keep thinking it's a close affair and no big changes are needed, well that'll remain your problem and you'll keep making it easy for the SH!

Posted 17:39 28th March 2011

bluelion says...

what does it say for the professionalism of the winning teamto let the losing team have a 4 try bonus point?

Posted 15:59 28th March 2011

Carpelone says...

Super Rugby players are undoubtely more skillful and physical than NH ones.

Refereeing is definitely different, more inclined to facilitate free flowing rugby.

Comparing 6N games to Super Rugby is pointless, since there is no much at stake at this time in SR. In the final rounds, tryless games appear in SR too (I remember a final between Crusaders and Hurricanes, awful).

However, still the Rugby Union rules apply (set apiece is still important, forward passes at offloads should be punished....) even though Kiwi's referees consider them as suggestions rather than laws to enforce on the pitch. They did not like the way Italy' s scrum dealt with the AB's one, but they have to come to terms with them.

Rugby Union is a compromise between the expansive style of SH and the tactical one in the NH. Of course I liked the show, even though I would have preferred a better results for the Sharks. Sadly, the Sharks got better when Smit went off, worrying. One question for the Kiwis: is the much advertised Dagg at AB's level? Very poor and lazy disply yesterday, Mils is still so much better.

@ Dafydd I would not rule out Toulouse against Crusaders, not to mention England. Catch Clerc and Medard if you can, the ABs could not, couple of years ago.

And I would not rule out any of the top SA three team against the 'Saders.

Posted 15:17 28th March 2011