R
Radman
Guest
ROBBIE! ROBBIE! ROBBIE!...OI! OI! OI!...ROBBIE! ROBBIE! ROBBIE! OI! OI! OI!...ROBBIE!...OI!...ROBBIE!...OI!.....ROBBIE! ROBBIE! ROBBIE!...OI! OI! OI!!!!!!!
Rubbish tactics by Mackenzie, NEVER take the captain off in a game like that....I couldn't hear the commentary but did Phil Waugh get REPLACED towards the end of the game?!?![/b]
Rubbish tactics by Mackenzie, NEVER take the captain off in a game like that....<div class='quotemain'>
I couldn't hear the commentary but did Phil Waugh get REPLACED towards the end of the game?!?![/b]
Yeah, definitely agree on that one. Comparing this years S14 final to the negative and dour affair that was the Heineken Cup final, and I think it's pretty clear which was the more enjoyable match to watch. [/b]
I take it you didn't watch the game, only watched the highlights? It was test match quality.You're kidding right? The first half was decent but the 2nd was a yawnfest, that gypsies horse at the end was pretty amusing though.
Watching the Guinness Prem final? Ten times more entertaining, End to end and definitley no need for any Mickey Mouse law changes. Eight minutes left for Leicester to produce a miracle.[/b]
I take it you didn't watch the game, only watched the highlights? It was test match quality. [/b][/quote]<div class='quotemain'>
You're kidding right? The first half was decent but the 2nd was a yawnfest, that gypsies horse at the end was pretty amusing though.
Watching the Guinness Prem final? Ten times more entertaining, End to end and definitley no need for any Mickey Mouse law changes. Eight minutes left for Leicester to produce a miracle.[/b]
<div class='quotemain'> Yeah, definitely agree on that one. Comparing this years S14 final to the negative and dour affair that was the Heineken Cup final, and I think it's pretty clear which was the more enjoyable match to watch. [/b]
You should be banned for that type of sarcasism!Both games were excellent
[/b]
You should be banned for that type of sarcasism!<div class='quotemain'>
Both games were excellent
[/b]
My god that was a complicated way of saying it was tight and you enjoyed it. In that sense I thought it was a decent game and most finals become "trench warfare" due to pressure. I enjoy SH and Nh rugby and Im not keen on all this slagging between the two hemispheres so lets just appreciate the two great games played today by exceptional atheletes.I class a great game when I see great attack meeting great defence. You can often see this even if they only move about ten metres after 10 phases.
The first half was more open for both teams because they were exploring the weaknesses in each others defence. However in the second half after both teams had their lines breached during that first half they did what truly great teams do....they readjusted their defensive patterns accordingly....so in the second half both teams settled into test match trench warfare.
So how can you tell if it is good attack if after ten phases they have gone nowhere?
- Variations in the runners lines.
- Missout passes and dummy runners.
- Changes in tactics between forwards and backs play.
- Variation between short chips, reverses, grubbers.
- Variation between the crash targets (close, central, wide).
- One on one matchups and numbers crashing
- Pick and go, one off, two off, mauls.
- Reverse plays, inside balls.
Now if a team does all this when they attack even if they are going nowhere...they are a very good team. If they only do a few of these things when they attack and go nowhere...then they are not as good. They are a LIMITED team.
However a great team is a team who can do all these things and RECYCLE possession. Playing with variety is one thing but it is the ability to play with various attacking option and to recycle it back when each attacking option is shut down.
Both team last night showed they could attack with these various methods and also recycle the ball when a phase was shut down. This shows they were both worthy finalists.
Consequently a team who can DEFEND all of this is also a very good defensive team. Both teams showed their knowledge of reading the play when it came to defending the others attacking plays. The also showed the nous to turn it over when they were under pressure on the line.
Tactically both teams kicked for position well and understood when it was on to run or to kick. They also defended well with their defensive lines balanced between rushing to kill a running play or hanging to watch a kick. Ellis for the Crusaders was sweeping very well to cover Beales short range kicking game. The Crusaders though prefered to bomb it over rather than a short chip.
Set pieces were not as predictable as the pre-match predictions said it would be which shows the packs had come to disrupt the opposition as much as possible. This coupled with pushing the laws to the limit at the rucks shows the game was closer to a test match rather than provincial level.
Anyway this is how I judge wheter a game is good or not.
[/b]