Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
2014 Super Rugby: Crusaders v Stormers (Round 4)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Darwin" data-source="post: 628584" data-attributes="member: 24910"><p>I don't think the number of tackles alone tell us a lot about how good (or otherwise) the attack (or defense) was. For example in the Reds 43-33 victory over the Cheetahs the sides combined to make 240 tackles - exactly the same number as in the Crusaders vs Stormers match. Amazingly there were almost exactly the same number of missed tackles in both matches too (28 in the Crusaders match, 27 in the Reds match). These results can probably be interpreted several ways - you could suggest that the defense in the Cheetahs vs Stormers match was just as good as in the Crusaders vs Reds match (but the scoreline would suggest otherwise!). The difference between the two matches was the number of actual linebreaks,as there were 3 times as many linebreaks in the Reds match. While the Crusaders and the Stormers players were breaking the odd tackle they weren't running very directly (the Crusaders in particular), so few of there broken tackles resulted in linebreaks. In addition when they did break the line (or get over the advantage line by breaking a tackle) the ball recycling was very slow, which meant the opposition defense was able to be re-set. It was somewhat telling in my opinion that the Crusaders try was scored directly after a breakdown where the ball wasn't overly well protected at the base, forcing Ellis to deliver the ball quickly to the backs, catching the Stormers on the back-foot.</p><p></p><p>Don't get me wrong: I think both sides defended well (and there some excellent cover defense from both sides), but the poor attack made defense a lot easier.</p><p></p><p>I hate to say it, but I actually agree with one of Justin Marshall recent articles about the Crusaders. He suggests that they seem so completely locked into a structured game that they can't seem to take the opportunities that are offered to them. At every breakdown they seem to deliberately slow down the ball delivery so they can setup their backs (or forwards). All this does is allow the opposition backline to realign and get set to smash the Crusaders behind the advantage line. Given the Crusaders lack powerful ball runners they really need to get fast ball so they exploit a defense that is not set. I just hope we see the Crusader play with slightly more freedom next week. I'm certainly not suggesting that they abandon all structure (ala the Highlanders 2013...), but rather they look to play what is in front of them, rather than rigidly stick to a structure regardless of the situation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I concede I was probably a bit unfair on the Crusaders scrum calling it 'hit & miss'. They had the dominant scrum for the 1st 30-odd minutes, I was just a little disappointed that this dominance faded pretty quickly (I thought the scrums were pretty even in the 2nd half), and that they gave away a few too many unnecessary penalties and free-kicks (for technical infringements). When on-form I think the Crusaders have the best scrum in the competition, and I'd like to see them using the scrum as a real weapon (apart from against the Highlanders.... they should take it easy when they play them <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree that George Whitelock should be starting at 6. The only reason I suggested Taufua at 6 is because starting is probably the only way he will get on the field for the Crusaders - he spent 80 minutes against the Stormers sitting on the bench.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure I've seen enough to suggest "normal business will resume" yet. They scrapped though with a victory over a rather ordinary Stormers side (a side that lost by 25 to the Lions a couple of weeks ago!). However I'm pretty confident that normal business will resume soon or later. Simply because it always does with the Crusaders. They have far too much experience and talent in their ranks not to sort themselves out. Hopefully they can get a good win over the Rebels in the weekend (though they have had issues with them in the past), as they certainly don't want to go into the bye with only a single win.</p><p></p><p>I'm not convinced about Fonotia at this level. He is certainly big and strong, but he isn't overly dynamic, and is rather predictable. However I can certainly see your reasoning for including him, and I do think he could help straighten the Crusaders attack somewhat (as it is very lateral at times). He scored a try with his only touch of the ball on Saturday, so you couldn't have really asked for much more than that!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Darwin, post: 628584, member: 24910"] I don't think the number of tackles alone tell us a lot about how good (or otherwise) the attack (or defense) was. For example in the Reds 43-33 victory over the Cheetahs the sides combined to make 240 tackles - exactly the same number as in the Crusaders vs Stormers match. Amazingly there were almost exactly the same number of missed tackles in both matches too (28 in the Crusaders match, 27 in the Reds match). These results can probably be interpreted several ways - you could suggest that the defense in the Cheetahs vs Stormers match was just as good as in the Crusaders vs Reds match (but the scoreline would suggest otherwise!). The difference between the two matches was the number of actual linebreaks,as there were 3 times as many linebreaks in the Reds match. While the Crusaders and the Stormers players were breaking the odd tackle they weren't running very directly (the Crusaders in particular), so few of there broken tackles resulted in linebreaks. In addition when they did break the line (or get over the advantage line by breaking a tackle) the ball recycling was very slow, which meant the opposition defense was able to be re-set. It was somewhat telling in my opinion that the Crusaders try was scored directly after a breakdown where the ball wasn't overly well protected at the base, forcing Ellis to deliver the ball quickly to the backs, catching the Stormers on the back-foot. Don't get me wrong: I think both sides defended well (and there some excellent cover defense from both sides), but the poor attack made defense a lot easier. I hate to say it, but I actually agree with one of Justin Marshall recent articles about the Crusaders. He suggests that they seem so completely locked into a structured game that they can't seem to take the opportunities that are offered to them. At every breakdown they seem to deliberately slow down the ball delivery so they can setup their backs (or forwards). All this does is allow the opposition backline to realign and get set to smash the Crusaders behind the advantage line. Given the Crusaders lack powerful ball runners they really need to get fast ball so they exploit a defense that is not set. I just hope we see the Crusader play with slightly more freedom next week. I'm certainly not suggesting that they abandon all structure (ala the Highlanders 2013...), but rather they look to play what is in front of them, rather than rigidly stick to a structure regardless of the situation. I concede I was probably a bit unfair on the Crusaders scrum calling it 'hit & miss'. They had the dominant scrum for the 1st 30-odd minutes, I was just a little disappointed that this dominance faded pretty quickly (I thought the scrums were pretty even in the 2nd half), and that they gave away a few too many unnecessary penalties and free-kicks (for technical infringements). When on-form I think the Crusaders have the best scrum in the competition, and I'd like to see them using the scrum as a real weapon (apart from against the Highlanders.... they should take it easy when they play them :D). I agree that George Whitelock should be starting at 6. The only reason I suggested Taufua at 6 is because starting is probably the only way he will get on the field for the Crusaders - he spent 80 minutes against the Stormers sitting on the bench. I'm not sure I've seen enough to suggest "normal business will resume" yet. They scrapped though with a victory over a rather ordinary Stormers side (a side that lost by 25 to the Lions a couple of weeks ago!). However I'm pretty confident that normal business will resume soon or later. Simply because it always does with the Crusaders. They have far too much experience and talent in their ranks not to sort themselves out. Hopefully they can get a good win over the Rebels in the weekend (though they have had issues with them in the past), as they certainly don't want to go into the bye with only a single win. I'm not convinced about Fonotia at this level. He is certainly big and strong, but he isn't overly dynamic, and is rather predictable. However I can certainly see your reasoning for including him, and I do think he could help straighten the Crusaders attack somewhat (as it is very lateral at times). He scored a try with his only touch of the ball on Saturday, so you couldn't have really asked for much more than that! [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
2014 Super Rugby: Crusaders v Stormers (Round 4)
Top