Crusaders vs B&I Lions
-
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.
-
Well, that was a bit disappointing. Well done Lions - comfortable winners, really.
Slippery conditions made it a bit of a slugfest, which probably suited them more than us - but certainly didn't lend itself to scintillating backplay. I think the score very much reflects those conditions.
First lesson - for the first time this season our short loose-forward trio got exposed at the lineout - where we only had two genuine jumpers. Against an international lineout with a couple of taller loose forwards, that got found out. They marked Romano and Sammy tightly and what's usually an important strength was beaten. Read or Douglas might have made quite a difference there.
The advantage we had in the scrums in the first half was completely nullified by the ref. - some potentially justified, but you certainly couldn't say there was any leniency - plus the obvious one that seemed completely wrong.
Lions defence was great. Completely smothered our efforts and there was far too much shoveling the ball along the line. Needed Drummie out there earlier and then Mo'unga needed to take it to the line more. But overall, Lions domination of territory and possession didn't let us play enough. The few opportunities we had to score got messed up - by the forwards, by Bridge, and by Mo'unga not being able to outrun their flanker - what the hell was that? Richie's pretty quick, so that guy must be lightning!
For us - Goodhue, Sam Whitelock, Dagg in the first half, but not the second and Todd were probably the best. Scrum was good when it wasn't getting pinged. Defense was pretty good.
Unbeaten season gone! Not good enough!
Sam Whitelock's post-match talk wasn't his best - he might get to read a bit about that. Someone's bound to be offended.
-
Just got back from the game. Haven't seen much of the Crusaders but they saved their worst for tonight I take it. George Bridge couldn't catch a cold out there. Don't know why Whitelock kept turning down shots at goal and going for the line as if they were playing the Cheetahs or Blues or something like that and as people have said, Mounga's kicking was very aimless for most of the night. Not a good night for the Crusaders backs but credit to the Lions they played well and their fans were good value throughout the night.
-
The most amazing thing about both backlines bumbling it on attack is that this is the first game in about 3 years I have seen where the ref has got both lines onside for the majority of the game.
In heaven, the game is refereed by someone with a dodgy grasp of English as a second language and therefore the players have to stop cheating on their own initiative as God is all-seeing - instead of cheating, just a bit, but every single time ..... until they are told to stop.
-
-
-
-
Good result for the tour, so glad the BILs fronted up and won. All in all a much better performance.
AWJ confounded his critics (me) with a good 80 minute performance, Farrell ran the show well. Still not sure about the centre combo and I guess much will depend upon Davies HIA results. You have to feel sorry for Stuart Hogg, just as he's getting himself into the game he gets crocked, will he have the chance to press for test selection now? Time is short so maybe not, which would be a shame. Williams is obviously being groomed for the other wing spot (North to start on the other flank), though I thought Watson looked sharper and quicker than Williams, though he could be an option at FB. SOB looked good and as @MiketheSnow said earlier O'Mahoney put down a marker today and totally wiped out his last performance. Selection in the back row will be interesting.
-
@Tim said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@SammyC ah but this year I'm not just trolling. He doesn't look ready to play the Lions.
I think someone else mentioned he looked like he'd taken a knock. Prior to that he just looked short of a gallop as you'd expect coming back from injury.
-
-
@Gunner Just not very gracious - stuff about Crusaders' mistakes letting the Lions into the game and then reiterating that when offered the chances through leading questions to say nice things about the winners. Nothing too awful, just something I thought the NH Press are likely to pounce on.
-
-
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.
