Stormers v Chiefs

Hooroo

Watched it recorded so like live with no ads at half time. Chiefs were awesome and Stormers weren't. That simple. 
Thought the ref let the rucks be a free for all. One of our guys hit a ruck from the side line pretty much and I thought you silly boy (it was early in game) and ref just let it go and then a Stormer did the same. Brilliant

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="cgrant" data-cid="599610" data-time="1469307093">Though it is probable they will be without Dane Coles, I think the Canes should win the semi final just because the travel schedule is too hard for the Chiefs.</blockquote> Does anyone know when the chiefs fly back, is it today?

No Quarter

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="599597" data-time="1469300657">They were in a rebuilt year, after losing many crucial players. It's an awesome achievement that they made the play-offs. Of the Kiwi teams, they also played the strongest opposition (and could only leave NZ on Tuesday).</blockquote>
Who did they lose? Canes lost Nonu, Smith, Thrush and Franks off the top off my head. NMS out injured for the entire season too. Are they in a "rebuilding" year as well? 
What a cop out of an excuse. They just needed a semi compenent game plan with their pack, but Toddy proved how shit he is as a coach yet again. I feel for Saders fans putting him with him for so long. 
On the Chiefs - bloody well played! Squad ravaged by injuries but Rennie has made no excuses and has them firing at the business end of the season. D Mac looks back to his best following the break, think his time in the AB camp has really helped. 
Canes v Chiefs is going to he a cracker if both teams play like they did this weekend.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599633" data-time="1469315012">
<div>
Always going to happen - unless it pissed with rain.
 
The best team they beat all season was the Brumbies - the only other decent (half-decent) teams they played were the Sharks, Lions, Tahs and Bulls and lost to all of them (1-1 vs the Bulls). Drew with the Sunwolves!
 
In a fairly structured competition they wouldn't have made the top eight - possibly not the top 10.
</div>
</blockquote>
The NZ teams could be a lot more dominant next season then.

gt12

That was much better than the shit the Crusaders dishes up - admittedly against a lesser team though. 
Enjoyed a sleep-in, woke up and started watching to see Chiefs still hasn't got their exits right... but started taking their chances and then it was all over. You'd be pissed as a Stormers fan to see them ship 60 (although it looked like most had gone home by the final hooter!). 
A bit of a shame that the Chiefs don't stay and get the Lions. 
With the clan injuries up front, they'll have a hard time against that Lions team. So, I'm picking a Lions final against the Chiefs. I reckon their Argentina gamble is going to work out and they'll win it. Of course, given the quality of the 4 teams, anything could happen which is good - at least the best four teams are in the playoffs.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="599663" data-time="1469323330">
<div>
Who did they lose? Canes lost Nonu, Smith, Thrush and Franks off the top off my head. NMS out injured for the entire season too. Are they in a "rebuilding" year as well? 
What a cop out of an excuse. They just needed a semi compenent game plan with their pack, but Toddy proved how shit he is as a coach yet again. I feel for Saders fans putting him with him for so long. 
On the Chiefs - bloody well played! Squad ravaged by injuries but Rennie has made no excuses and has them firing at the business end of the season. D Mac looks back to his best following the break, think his time in the AB camp has really helped. 
Canes v Chiefs is going to he a cracker if both teams play like they did this weekend.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It was no cop out excuse. An excuse is not the same as a reason/explanation for something. I just mentioned it as one of several reasons why the Crusaders were the no.4 NZ team this year and the only of the 4 Kiwi teams not making the semis, for which - I may add - also full credit must be given to the Lions. Just criticising the Saders doesn't do the Lions justice.
 
You tell me when a team is in rebuild! Because according to you it clearly isn't losing Richie McCaw and all their first-fives (and All Blacks) Dan Carter, Colin Slade & Tom Taylor. Does a team need to be rebuilding on all positions to be in rebuild mode, or is rebuilding one of the most crucial positions in a team enough? Is everything black or white for you, or are there shades of grey in-between?
 
On top of that list, they lost Nepo Laulala (unfortunately, the Chiefs didn't get the benefit of playing him), Dominic Bird (always rated him/ at this stage better than Scott Barrett IMO), Willie Heinz (although not a great halfback, he was way better than Drummond), and Robbie Fruean injured all season (which is quite crucial if you only have Fonotia & rookies Havili and Wainui).
 
I totally agree that Blackadders has been pretty average, both in developing the game plan, game day selections and the hiring and firing. Crusaders higher management are to blame as well.
 
Nobody will hear me denying that the Chiefs have had an awful injury list all year and have done very well regardless. Nobody will also hear me denying that the Chiefs & Highlanders have a better backline than the Crusaders. Nobody will hear me denying that Boyd, Rennie & JJ have coached their teams better than Blackadder. Because I'm not as one-eyed as you think I am. I'm just a bit defensive when the Fern bursts out in negativity again, because so many people on the Fern are always so negative (glass half empty), while I'm trying to be more positive (glass half full). That's just the way I am. The Crusaders seem to cop it more than - for example - the Blues, which probably says more about the quantity and one-eyed-ness of Ferners supporting the respective teams than the quality of the teams/players. If someone is overly negative about the Chiefs or one of their players, there are plenty of people responding & offering different views. When it's the Crusaders, not so much. Which is still my big question after less than a year on the Fern: why are the Crusaders the "hatiest team" on the Fern? Why not the Highlanders (who before last year weren't great and their supporters are not in great numbers on the Fern)? And no, I'm not suggesting that the Landers should be the hatiest team. There shouldn't be a hatiest team full stop.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="599697" data-time="1469328462">
<div>
There shouldn't be a hatiest team full stop.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Someone doesn't live surrounded by Brumbies supporters.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="599697" data-time="1469328462">
<div>
The Crusaders seem to cop it more than - for example - the Blues, which probably says more about the quantity and one-eyed-ness of Ferners than the quality of the teams/players. If someone is overly negative about the Chiefs or one of their players, there are plenty of people responding & offering different views. When it's the Crusaders, not so much. Which is still my big question after less than a year on the Fern: why are the Crusaders the "hatiest team" on the Fern? Why not the Highlanders (who before last year weren't great and their supporters are not in great numbers on the Fern)? And no, I'm not suggesting that the Landers should be the hatiest team. There shouldn't be a hatiest team full stop.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Simple, dominance. The Saders are the last kiwi side to dominate the comp for an extended period of time. When they won their first 5-6 titles, they were unstoppable and massively dominant. That bred a certain 'confidence' in some of their fans, which translated into a reaction in real life and online.
 
Before the Crusaders, it was the Great Auckland Side of the Eighties and Nineties who were So Good I Have To Use Capitals. Auckland haven't been a force for about 20 years, and so there isn't a simmering resentment at being taken to the cleaners over and over and over and over again.
 
There are also some one eyed, vocal Crusader supporters who harbour a siege mentality and this doesn't help the cause.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599698" data-time="1469328549">
<div>
Someone doesn't live surrounded by Brumbies supporters.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Are you suggesting that the Crusaders are the hatiest team because of their supporters? Isn't it pathetic that the attitude etc of supporters reflects on their team?

Rancid Schnitzel

I don't think people hate the Crusaders, but a very vocal minority of fans have done a hell of a lot to put noses out of joint on this forum for a number of years. That's very unfair, because there are some great Crusaders fan here, but vocal twats always ruin it for the good guys.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="599702" data-time="1469328759">
<div>
Are you suggesting that the Crusaders are the hatiest team because of their supporters? Isn't it pathetic that the attitude etc of supporters reflects on their team?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No I was responding to your claim by pointing out I take perverse pleasure in seeing the Brumbies fail because of their fans. So if the cap fits for those around Christchurch, then they should wear it. There's a reason stereotypes exist.

pakman

Blues supporter, but with them out am backing Chiefs because they play rugby which makes you want to jump out of your seat.
What irony that an extra bonus point against clan would have had them staying in SA.

Bovidae

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="599807" data-time="1469346819">
<div>
Blues supporter, but with them out am backing Chiefs because they play rugby which makes you want to jump out of your seat.
What irony that an extra bonus point against clan would have had them staying in SA.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Similarly, the BP the Crusaders threw away in Suva ended up costing them a trip to Cape Town instead of Jo'burg.

DMX

Great by Chiefs but really puts into question the credibility of the tournament that the Stormers got a home field play off without playing a NZ team and then get their butts kicked like this at home?

Bovidae

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="hurricane" data-cid="599647" data-time="1469319690">
<div>
Does anyone know when the chiefs fly back, is it today?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Arrive on Tuesday NZT. The Chiefs got the first available flight back from SA, while the Crusaders were forced to wait for the next flight.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="DMX" data-cid="599868" data-time="1469373214">
<div>
Great by Chiefs but really puts into question the credibility of the tournament that the Stormers got a home field play off without playing a NZ team and then get their butts kicked like this at home?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
although, there is also an argument that there is nothing wrong when you look at the 4 teams that are in the semi's....and I expect this will be the line SANZAR will take.

KiwiMurph

Except for the issue of where the games are being played and the travel of teams leading up to this week's semis.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bovidae" data-cid="599879" data-time="1469392155">
<div>
Arrive on Tuesday NZT. The Chiefs got the first available flight back from SA, while the Crusaders were forced to wait for the next flight.
</div>
</blockquote>
Fair enough too.

hurricane

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bovidae" data-cid="599879" data-time="1469392155">Arrive on Tuesday NZT. The Chiefs got the first available flight back from SA, while the Crusaders were forced to wait for the next flight.</blockquote> Thanks for this.

nostrildamus

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Why not the Highlanders (who before last year weren't great and their supporters are not in great numbers on the Fern)? And no, I'm not suggesting that the Landers should be the hatiest team. There shouldn't be a hatiest team full stop.</blockquote>
I'm not sure if this is a hybrid rant/explanation/whinge/excuse but it is great. I suspect the Highlanders don't get that many heckles because for 3012 decades (your calculations may vary) they have been the sterotypical try really hard but don't quite have the money to get big guns to clinch it at the end types. Plus they elected to stay there and be loyal :whistle: Mr Richard Hugh McCaw :whistle:

The Silver Fern

Stormers v Chiefs