• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2017 Super Rugby] Round 2: Hurricanes vs. Rebels (04/03/2017)

TRF_heineken

RIP #J9
Staff member
TRF Legend
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
11,758
Country Flag
South Africa
Club or Nation
South Africa
Super%20Rugby.png


Hurricanes.png
Versus%20Super.png
Rebels.png


Venue: Westpac Stadium
Time: 06:15 CAT (SA, GMT+2)
 
Lucky the Rebels have the soft Hurricanes away from home to iron out their defensive issues! What is the record for points differential after just two games?
 
Hurricanes starting XV:

1 C. Eves
2 D. Coles (c)
3 To'omaga Allen
4 J. Blackwell
5 M. Fatialofa
6 Shields
7 A. Savea
8 R. Prinsep
9 TJ Perenara
10 B. Barrett
11 J. Savea
12 N. Laumape
13 M. Proctor
14 V. Aso
15 NM Skudder
 
Canes simply took the Rebels apart, already after 2 rounds it looks like the gulf between NZ rugby and the rest is even wider if anything. Its really not good for the game and ultimately not good for NZ. Sadly SANZAR will just fiddle round the edges, the ARU will remain rudderless and we will probably just see more of the same. I guess its a topic for a different thread, but I worry for the future of rugby.
 
Canes have scored 154 points in two games....... Jesus
 
66 point difference in the first game and 65 points in the second. The gap is closing!

Seriously disappointed in the Rebels this year so far. I thought they'd be the most likely Oz team to develop this year based on their performances last season, but the Reds and Force look far better than them.
 
I didn't get to see the match, but what happened to the spirit the team had in the past? At least you could count on the players not giving up and trying to fight their way back into the match.
 
The Kiwis should play in their own League or the ARU should cut their 5 franchises and create an NRL club, the Sydney Wallabies or something like that
 
I agree something needs to be done, but why would the ARU create a team in a totally different sport??

The Kiwis are already playing in their own league -its called Super Rugby!
 
On the contrary, I think it's a marvelous thing that kiwi franchises get to play in such a big competition and them setting such high standards shows to everyone else the road they need to take in order for rugby to develop as a professional sport.
 
This is probably more of a post for a different thread, but I think much of this comes down to attitude to the game. What we see the NZ franchises (and the All Blacks) doing is as near as I think Rugby Union can come to Johan Cruyff's "Total Football" concept, where any player can and does play any position in a dynamic and seamless transition during the game.

While Rugby Union could never have is a situation where a fullback could play prop or a left winger play lock. IMO, rugby's version of Total Football means that no matter what position you play in, while you are expected to excel at the skills related to that position, you are also expected to exhibit many of the skills related to other positions. The is where you see props offloading in the tackle, locks stepping opponents in the back-line, No. 8s distributing the ball from the ruck/tackle, hookers inserting themselves out wide in the attacking channels, and wingers, fullbacks and centres jackling for the ball at the tackle.

While this might seem to some to give NZ teams an advantage, I don't think the gap is as great as many fans think. The edge is only a few percent, and you only have to be off your game by that few percent to get toppled (as the All Blacks found out against Ireland in Chicago last year).

There might be a gap at the moment, but its not inclosable. All said and done, rugby players are just like people, they have two arms, two legs and a brain. Any player good enough to play the game at the top level can be taught the skills, its a matter of attitude. Its also a matter of having faith in your systems. This "universal skills" thing hasn't just come along overnight.
 
I dont think anything you say is wrong, smartcooky, but there is also more to the story.The structural problems in Australian rugby with insufficient attention to the game at grass roots level means we have no meaningful competitions below Super Rugby - where we have at least one and maybe 2 too many teams. Add to this the reality that for every talented kid we breed, there are 4 codes of football competing for them.

Having lived in NZ the difference is stark, the way that rugby in NZ is structured means that kids get developed and challenged from a young age and there are so many levels of competition that build on each other. Just compare the joke that is the NRC in Australia to the Mitre 10 Cup in NZ.

I really worry for the future of the game, particularly in the SH, its not healthy for all levels of rugby to be so lopsided.
 
I dont think anything you say is wrong, smartcooky, but there is also more to the story.The structural problems in Australian rugby with insufficient attention to the game at grass roots level means we have no meaningful competitions below Super Rugby - where we have at least one and maybe 2 too many teams. Add to this the reality that for every talented kid we breed, there are 4 codes of football competing for them.

Having lived in NZ the difference is stark, the way that rugby in NZ is structured means that kids get developed and challenged from a young age and there are so many levels of competition that build on each other. Just compare the joke that is the NRC in Australia to the Mitre 10 Cup in NZ.

I really worry for the future of the game, particularly in the SH, its not healthy for all levels of rugby to be so lopsided.

I talked to an Australian referee who came over for the Las Vegas invetational and he said that rugby is taken more seriously here than in Australia.

For me it is a weird comment but the more I hear from Australians the less surprised I am.
 
player development in NZ rugby puts a much higher priority on developing skills (over physical development) in age grades, the long term effect is that while we are not as dominant as we were at age grade level its showed huge benefits at super rugby and test level.

in terms of the rebels and Australian super rugby. as an outsider that doesn't really see whats going on it has always looked to me like the top players play musical chairs with the franchises.
There is some movement around the NZ teams but big name key player movements are fairly rare and mostly happen because you get multiple top players competing for the same position in a team. Like at the chiefs you had SBW, ALB, Seta & Ngatai in midfield and TKB, Weber and Pulu at halfback so it kinda made sense for some to move.
But look at the last few years a number of top players all moved to the rebels which hurt other teams then this year some seemed to have moved off again so the momentum the rebels had gained is now lost. Aussie teams are not going to compete if their key players that really run the culture are moving off all the time. Teams get built around these players so they are having to constantly rebuild.

As far as the canes go its been an insane start to the season but they have played what seem to be two of the weaker teams in the comp. Is the step up to playing a strong teams going to be a shock? They have the chiefs next who are coming off two tough NZ Derby games.

IMO canes do look good despite the weak competition.

Chiefs vs Canes next weekend, even this early it looks like a clash between the clear 2 best sides so far.
 
Last edited:
I talked to an Australian referee who came over for the Las Vegas invetational and he said that rugby is taken more seriously here than in Australia.

For me it is a weird comment but the more I hear from Australians the less surprised I am.

And that is sad, really, as Australia used to be the second or third rugby nation with New Zealand and South Africa. They used to represent a real threat to the kiwis, now they are battered, weak and defeated. I hope the ARU and SARU will take their responsibilities and..

Zv7-Tw.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top