@donsteppa said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

DMac is there over Mo’unga because several NZ rugby journalists and the AB’s brains trust seem to be blindly in love with the razzle dazzle and “exciting risk taking” of DMac. Which is so amazing that we have to convert him to first five so he can cause even more damag... err... sorry... exciting plays.

Yeah, I’m still sulking about last week.

DMac is the RWC2019 Marc Ellis. There to beat up some minnow on a flat track. Please please please lets have BB and Mounga in the first choice 23 for the important games.

The professional rugby player Lions will probably run over this NZ barbarions team later in the game, but by fuck these lads should be proud of themselves no matter what happens.

He got replaced a couple of minutes ago but another good start from Laulala. With Franks injurred and Charlie gone it could have been a problem but Nepo has done awesomely well.

NZ Barbarians take a bow. Be proud. Kia Kaha.

Normally the score says who was the winner. This time it was wrong.

I think the ABs are trying to change their style/game plan based on where they think the rules/interpretations of rules are currently at in order to really hit their straps in 2019.

I think what I saw yesterday was the ABs lowering their point of impact in tackles for example. A lot more "ankle cutters" or waist high hits, rather than the previous chest high attempt at a dominant tackle. This means the opposition will get dropped but will have the chance to off load/recycle but also means less chance of an AB YC/RC from a poor (or slipped up) tackle. This may mean that while we continue to expect both backs and forwards to be able to play the jackal, we have to rethink the openside role again....but I think Cane would adapt if necessary, just like McCaw adapted to a changing role over time.

I think also the ABs think pace/elusiveness is the answer to a new style of game and this smothering rush defense but have yet to figure out the rest of what that game means. Their non-injury/retirement/off-to-Europe-to-earn-big-euro forced picks kinda suggest this. DMac brings elusiveness. Reiko brings pace.

The problem is that when trying to find a new style game, shit happens, players get selected that might remind you of Ben Blair style midgets but I guess its good they are trying to move the game forward while everyone else (looking at you England) tries to be what the ABs used to be.

@tim said in Highlanders vs. Hurricanes:

@dingo Dropped the ball from set piece attacks like the Blues.

Gnawing fingernails down to the bone is occasionally more enjoyable than watching 'canes play when they are in dumb/stupid shit mode.

SCOTT OF THE BARRETTS!!!!

Dane Coles. New Zealand's best winger.

Is it just me being a 'canes support and all, but do Hanson's big calls in bringing back Jules, and starting Laumape and Jordie seem like pretty good calls at half time?

@nostrildamus said in All Blacks vs Boks:

Do the Barretts have any children? Might as well get the next 20 years of AB selection sorted out early..

If you thought about it, McCaw plus hockey chick are married now so can start knocking out sprogs for Barrett offspring to marry.

@machpants said in NZ vs. Aust - Japanese yawn edition:

@stargazer said in NZ vs. Aust - Japanese yawn edition:

Todd on for Squire, so who'll play at 7?

Read at six!

On the attacking scrum, Read was at six, Ardie at Eight. On the defensive scrum, they reversed.

@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

I don't recall a lot about Marc Ellis

"I don't recall a lot about Marc Ellis"

All you need to know about Marc Ellis is why is famous from a RWC perspective. He is famous for it due to a similar characteristic he shares with DMac. Not just being an outside back moved inside but he also looks for what is on for himself first because he backs himself (in my opinion). Its both what makes him good and bad (in a team game) at the same time.

@donsteppa said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

DMac is there over Mo’unga because several NZ rugby journalists and the AB’s brains trust seem to be blindly in love with the razzle dazzle and “exciting risk taking” of DMac. Which is so amazing that we have to convert him to first five so he can cause even more damag... err... sorry... exciting plays.

Yeah, I’m still sulking about last week.

DMac is the RWC2019 Marc Ellis. There to beat up some minnow on a flat track. Please please please lets have BB and Mounga in the first choice 23 for the important games.

@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

So why is DMac in the AB matchday 23 and Mounga not?

You'd think the BB/Mounga combination (with BB dropping back to 15) would be better than the BB/DMac combination too.

This is a great point. I think that combo gives us more options and provides potentially better security if BB is crocked

I agree but maybe only because of seeing Mounga in this Super season. He seems to be both the better injury replacement for BB if that happens, but also a pretty good impact replacement if BB drops back to 15 (with a reshuffle in back three depending on who is playing well). Just seems to give more positive options than DMac.

@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

So why is DMac in the AB matchday 23 and Mounga not?

You'd think the BB/Mounga combination (with BB dropping back to 15) would be better than the BB/DMac combination too.

Precision point kick there

@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.

No need. As far as I can tell no one has argued it wasn't Codie. The only argument appears to be that because the Crusaders was scrum was dominant (again unargued) therefore because of the zen of the thing, the penalty against the canes was/wasn't due to an obvious rule infringement.

I don't agree with that analysis. Looked to me like Taylor popped up because the canes hooker or TH stood up rather than going backwards. It doesn't matter that codie was the first to pop up if the reason he popped was due to the canes not maintaining a bind.

I think we are in agree to disagree territory. You see what you see. I see otherwise. To be fair, you have a Ref who agreed with you at the time.

@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.

No need. As far as I can tell no one has argued it wasn't Codie. The only argument appears to be that because the Crusaders was scrum was dominant (again unargued) therefore because of the zen of the thing, the penalty against the canes was/wasn't due to an obvious rule infringement.

@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.

Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.

Looked a reasonable call to me.

So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.

They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?

I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?

Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.

Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.

Yeah, so the Crusader who stood up should be penalised. Not the canes.

Going backwards while maintaining a bind is not penalisable.

@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

Particularly when you decide to hand them points like that.