Crusaders v Hurricanes
-
For a low scoring match it was quite enthralling. Canes did some very good things, but with the Saders having scrum dominance in the dewy conditions, it did make it extra tough for them. The defence from both sides was pretty good.
Crotty's not the biggest midfielder going around, but man he hits with some starch. Has superb technique and seems to read the play so well. He looked absolutely spent giving that post match interview.
Hopefully Barrett's injury isn't too bad, we'll need all hands on deck next week in Fiji.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
We were completely reamed in the forwards, our backs were shut down by the rush defence and we only lost by eight points. That is the upside. **
- If we had the forward dominance then we probably would have won by thirty**.
Ya fucken what now ??!!
-
@Siam said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
We were completely reamed in the forwards, our backs were shut down by the rush defence and we only lost by eight points. That is the upside. **
- If we had the forward dominance then we probably would have won by thirty**. How to get the forward dominance against that pack is the big question. We have done it before though.
Ya fucken what now ??!!
Huh? That's exactly what we did in Christchurch last year.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@KiwiMurph said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Bit sad watching Cory Jane - a shadow of himself in his prime
He runs very hot and cold now. When he's cold he sucks balls.
Should stick Aso on the wing and put Jordie in midfield.
Or give Jonah Lowe a run at centre. Next game v Cheetahs would be a good game for a SR debut.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@Siam said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
We were completely reamed in the forwards, our backs were shut down by the rush defence and we only lost by eight points. That is the upside. **
- If we had the forward dominance then we probably would have won by thirty**. How to get the forward dominance against that pack is the big question. We have done it before though.
Ya fucken what now ??!!
Huh? That's exactly what we did in Christchurch last year.
so? that was last year. this year everyone got a lesson on how to nullify the defending champs
..."would have wqon by thirty" - bollocks!
-
@kev said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 I think you underestimate the Crusaders backs. Win by 30 🤣
We won by 25 last year with less forward dominance than the Crusaders had tonight. Not unreasonable.
We probably aren't going to get forward dominance against the Crusaders but we need to do better than tonight to compete.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@kev said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 I think you underestimate the Crusaders backs. Win by 30 🤣
We won by 25 last year with less forward dominance than the Crusaders had tonight. Not unreasonable.
We probably aren't going to get forward dominance against the Crusaders but we need to do better than tonight to compete.
Who gives a fuck about last year??
wierd conversation
-
Good effort and result by the Crusaders.
The game was a lot different to what I expected, both teams much more conservative and a lot more errors. I guess the dew was a significant factor, but the Crusaders conceded far too many turnovers in the first 20 minutes. Once they got that sorted out, their forwards took control.
The game was probably won on the back of the scrum dominance and subsequent penalties - but, the defensive intensity just shut the Canes out of the game.
I think that's the big difference the new coaches have brought - under Toddy we'd tend to sit back more than most and let the opposition run at us. Under Razor, we're charging forward and pressuring and harassing and forcing mistakes.
-
@Siam said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@kev said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 I think you underestimate the Crusaders backs. Win by 30 🤣
We won by 25 last year with less forward dominance than the Crusaders had tonight. Not unreasonable.
We probably aren't going to get forward dominance against the Crusaders but we need to do better than tonight to compete.
Who gives a fuck about last year??
wierd conversation
I'm saying that a very similar Hurricanes team beat a very similar Crusaders team by 25 points last year having had less forward dominance than the Crusaders had tonight. Therefore I'm saying that if we had the same forward dominance the Crusaders had tonight, we would have won by thirty. I think results which happened last year are a decent predictor of what can happen this year.
I don't expect the Hurricanes to dominate the Crusaders in the forwards because the Crusaders are far better man for man. I tipped the Crusaders to win, after all.
-
@Hooroo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@Hooroo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Gotta ask. Is this essentially the same Crusaders team of last year but with heaps of injuries playing last years champs?
Is Scott Robertson a coaching messiah?
Heaps of injuries for us too.
What key guys are out for you? In terms of read and whitelock?
Best game of the season so far. Two tough teams banging each other for 60 odd mins but Canes came too soon and Crusaders kept banging away.
NMS, Coles, Fats and Proctor - we don't have any cover for them which is the problem so their injuries are hurting us. As good as Whitelock is having two AB locks to cover him is a nice luxary.
Not that injuries are the reason we lost. I said before the game I was worried about a big loss given the Saders are such a polished outfit this year. We defended pretty well to keep it close, but we were never in the game - as many have said the forwards got smashed in the set piece and that meant Beauden had no quality ball, and it also cost us a number of chances with lost lineouts & scrums - unforgiveable.
Saders are odds on to take out the comp at this stage. Robertson has them playing quality footy - they're the opposite to the Canes in that they play a high percentage game with few errors. Canes have played some pretty dumb footy this year but Beauden creating 5 tries a game has papered over that.
-
@Hooroo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@Hooroo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Gotta ask. Is this essentially the same Crusaders team of last year but with heaps of injuries playing last years champs?
Is Scott Robertson a coaching messiah?
Heaps of injuries for us too.
What key guys are out for you? In terms of read and whitelock?
Best game of the season so far. Two tough teams banging each other for 60 odd mins but Canes came too soon and Crusaders kept banging away.
Coles, Fatialofa, Proctor and NMS are pretty key players i would think. Even Blade Thompson would probably be an upgrade in the back row, although he has hardly played for two seasons.
Crusaders dominated in the forwards both at set piece and general play. That was the major difference. Matt Todd was huge.
Can't wait for the Crusaders vs Chiefs now. Should be another cracker.Edit: see above, beat me to it.
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
reckon Drummond coulda had the base of the posts there
Yeah - I think a trick was definitely missed there. I think a short ball to a big man focused on scoring at the base of the posts would have been very, very hard to stop.
Even a snipe by Drummond might have got there.
It's very hard to defend the try at the base of the posts.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@Crucial said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@Hooroo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Gotta ask. Is this essentially the same Crusaders team of last year but with heaps of injuries playing last years champs?
Is Scott Robertson a coaching messiah?
Heaps of injuries for us too.
Heaps? Coles yes, but the Chiefs also showed how the Canes can be smashed in the forwards to nullify the backs.
It's not like teams just clued on in 2017. The Chiefs came down here with the same tactics last year in the semi and Barrett went boom-boom. The Chiefs lost despite dominating the chances. It's possible to shut us down but even the best laid plans can be thrawted.
I can't remember what the Chiefs did earlier this season but the real catch on from the Crusaders tonight was the well executed rush defence. I don't think teams tried that last season against us. Obviously if you are going to do a rush defence then you have to be hugely disciplined which the Crusaders were. We never really kicked in behind the Crusaders to exploit this.
After flying to SA, playing the quarter final and then flying back (and while I know the Saders just had a ton of travel, I'd say travelling to SA and back during the finals is a tougher ask). But yes, Barrett has the ability to break tight games wide open and the Saders shut him down.
The Canes did try kicking behind the Saders defence a few times but the Saders had the cover there to deal with them.
Anyway, great game. The Saders had some pretty sloppy handling at times but their defence and dominant set piece more than made up for it. Looking forward to next week, should be huge.
-
@Chris-B. With Whitelock, Todd and Crotty, we have three guys leading the charge on defence. This rush seems to suit their style and mentality.
It was tough conditions. I was pleased that scores were tied at oranges given how much ball we had coughed up. The Canes have been deadly on turnover ball this year.
We made some excellent breaks and got some space, but we really lacked that finishing polish.
I liked Mo'unga's effort tonight. Played with that assurance you would hope for in a big match. Hall with his extra size and better defence was a good addition late in the game too.
-
Not much to add to what has already been said. IMO Crotty had a massive game; he was everywhere. Definitely deserves that AB starting spot.
I hope Scott Barrett's injury isn't too bad; not just for the Saders, but also for the ABs. At least, next week, the Crusaders will have Sam Whitelock back.
Taufua gave away too many penalties, but apart from that he had a great game tonight. Tireless.
Watching the Crusaders play tonight, you wouldn't say they had just returned from SA.
The Hurricanes may have been relying on the Barretts' kicking game too much. Once you shut that down, a big part of their game is gone.
I hope Riccitelli's injury isn't too serious; you wouldn't want Apisai as your starting hooker and a newbie on the bench. Aumua is with the NZU20s ... Unsure who they'd pick.
I agree with the comments about Jane. If you wouldn't know who he was, you'd say - after watching this game - that he's a pretty average SR player. Maybe time to retire ...?
-
@kev said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 but that was last year, things have changed - your not as good and Crusaders are quite a bit better.
I think our backs are just as good. We lost Marshall, Halaholo and Woodward but gained J. Barrett. Also Proctor and Laumapae are much better and NMS should be back at some point. Our forward pack hasn't been as good this year because of injuries to Thompson, Coles and Fatialofa and the departures of Matu'u and Vito so we probably won't get that forward dominance.
My comment around the thirty points was because I don't think the Crusaders did that well at exploiting their dominance. Conceding 20 turnovers wasn't a good sign for the Crusaders attack. We missed a quarter of our tackles and they could only score one try which came from a rolling maul. They couldn't construct a try from general play.
I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't say the Hurricanes forwards were completely dominated, the Crusaders were brilliant and yet the Crusaders only deserved to win by eight points. If having a dominant forward pack of 80 minutes of rugby should only grant you eight points, I think we can declare "the game is won upfront" a major fallacy.
To be fair, the Crusaders did defend very well. Always up in our face. There were several passages of play where we lost 20 metres. I don't think they would have been able to pull off this strategy so successful is our forwards were going forward.
