Super 15 Play Off QF: Crusaders - Sharks @ Trafalgar Park, Nelson (25-06-2011)

[TRF_Cymro]

Andy Ellis is woeful. Mathewson had a blinder on Friday.

I'm not sure how happy I'd be if I were a Sharks supporter, some of the calls by the ref were pretty confusing, especially that scrum call on Beast.

Bryce had a shocker to be fair.

Ellis was not helped by the lack of Crusader numbers at the breakdown today.

 

[smartcooky]

Bryce had a shocker to be fair.

Ellis was not helped by the lack of Crusader numbers at the breakdown today.

well Lawrence is a shocker, he should be subbed off at half time!

I went to the game tonight, and I am appalled at the amount of stuff that went unnoticed. He missed the best part of a dozen knock-ons (roughly equally in both directions) and numerous blatant offsides (again, roughly the same for both sides) and including one where a retiring player tackled a back who was second out from the ruck, and another where players well ahead of a downfield kick, made no attempt whatsoever to retire, and took part in play immediately their opponents touched the ball.

He also missed a player in a ruck, off his feet and in an offside position, slap the ball out of the SH's hands. It happened right under his nose, and he ruled a knock-on against the SH!!

Finally, the "Dangerous Play" call against Tendai Mtawarira was just utter garbage.

How does this man get to be SANZAR's leading referee?

What is it that those who make the decisions about these things, are seeing that the rest of us don't? They certainly cannot be seeing the blatant mistakes that I am seeing.

 

[187]

I hate to see an all-conf. final. A final should be between 2 teams from different countries.

I hope so too. I don't see the Blues beating the Reds at home so should be a Reds home final against hopefully the Crusaders with the Saders winning it to cap off a remarkable season.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I prefer a Reds-Stormers final. That will give us a new winner

 

[madflyhalf]

I prefer a Reds-Stormers final. That will give us a new winner

So do I!

 

[Teh Mite]

The Blues just suit us better than the Crusaders. I see us win at Eden Park much easier than in Nelson against the Saders. Oh well, the Stormers can set things right next week after they lost earlier this season. I hate to see an all-conf. final. A final should be between 2 teams from different countries.

Surely the point of a final is it should be between the best 2 sides in the competition?

That said, it should be a league therefore not needing a final anyway.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Well, I think the play offs give an extra edge to the competition. It's not as complicated as the NHL play offs for instance with a Home-Home-Away-Away-Home-Away-Home concept in a best-of-seven series.

The current system was implemented to ensure every country being included in the play offs.

 

[Amobokoboko]

I don't see the point why you should compare Super rugby with other sports. If the play offs would consist out of best of 5-7 you will hardly have any players left after one round.
Just as Bullit I also think that the one finishing at the top of the ladder of a league should be named champ, the play offs are just another way to get extra money in.

Anyway, the final will be a game between the 2 best teams.

 

[FlukeArtist]

The Blues just suit us better than the Crusaders. I see us win at Eden Park much easier than in Nelson against the Saders. Oh well, the Stormers can set things right next week after they lost earlier this season. I hate to see an all-conf. final. A final should be between 2 teams from different countries.

Nonsense.
The Final should be between the two best teams.
It willl be an all NZ affair

 

[Wally]

Nonsense.
The Final should be between the two best teams.
It willl be an all NZ affair

You say the final should be between the two best teams, but then go onto say it will be an all NZ affair

 

[Darwin]

I'm not denying that he's not making an impact or playing well. He's doing what an inside centre should be doing. I just didn't see any domination.
But i do despise him, so i'm very impartial at times. LOL!

What I don't like about SBW is the ridiculous hype surrounding everything he does; whenever he breaks a tackle or makes an offload the commentators would have you believe that this was greatest thing anyone has ever done on a rugby field.... However when you look past the hype, you actually see he is very good player. I don't want to like him as a rugby player, but I'm becoming a bit off a fan. As you say, he is doing what an inside centre should do (you really should be calling them second-fives now that you are in NZ ). What really impresses me about his game is that he is doing the basics well: his defence is solid, he is passing well, and his work at the breakdown is very under-rated. Generally League converts struggle with the intricacies of the breakdown (one of the reasons few League coverts thrive in the forwards in Rugby Union, with Brad Thorn the obvious exception), but SBW is a good at the breakdown as most forwards, and he makes very good decisions when to commit to the breakdown or not. I thought SBW had a good game last night, but he did throw a few offloads that were a bit unnecessary...

Andy Ellis is woeful. Mathewson had a blinder on Friday.

I'm not sure how happy I'd be if I were a Sharks supporter, some of the calls by the ref were pretty confusing, especially that scrum call on Beast.

I don't think Ellis was woeful. He certainly didn't have his best game, but he wasn't that poor, and he certainly wasn't helped by the fact he Sharks forwards were very disruptive at the ruck (and often grab him before he even got the ball..). Mathewson had his best game of the season against the Waratahs, however this is probably the only week this year that Mathewson has had a better game than Ellis. As much as I'd like Mathewson to be picked in the AB's, on this seasons form Andy Ellis would be miles ahead...

Onto the game itself. I didn't think the game was a great spectacle of rugby, with both teams having numerous handling errors. I thought the ref had a pretty poor game too which certainly didn't help. The Sharks seemed to have the best of first-half, but this certainly wasn't reflected on the score board. I was particularity impressed with the Sharks aggressive approach at the breakdown. Some of their work may not have been completely legal, but they really punished the Crusaders when they didn't commit enough numbers to the breakdown, driving them off their own ball numerous times. The Crusaders committed a lot more players to the breakdown in the second half, and the ref pinged the Sharks for a number of ruck infringements, which allowed the Crusaders to dominate the second half. I felt the game was a lot closer than the final score suggested; the main difference was that the Crusaders were far more clinical.

The Sharks ball runners weren't as effective as I thought they may have been. Bismark du Plessis had a couple of strong runs, but I can't recall either Deysel or Alberts having a big impact with the ball in hand. Indeed the best ball runner in the Sharks pack was probably Keegan Daniel, who is easily their smallest forward. I thought Michalek was very poor, the only thing I remember him doing all game was missing tackles! Pat Lambie was probably the standout Sharks back for me; I thought he should have replace Michalek at 10 at half-time (with Ludik coming into fullback).

Keiran Read was the standout Crusaders forward for me, he just seems to be getting better. Brad Thorn and Matt Todd has strong games as well. Dan Carter was pretty quiet at first-five, but he was strong defensively, and kicked well (despite a couple of early misses). As I mentioned above, SBW had a strong game, as did Sean Maitland on the wing. Tom Marshall again impressed with the ball in hand; I wonder what the Crusaders are going to do with him next year when Dagg comes back (he is welcome to come down to the Highlanders and play on the wing if he wants!).

 

[donmcdazzle]

Lets be honest the way the format is now definitely helped the Reds and Stormers. The Lions, Cheetahs, Rebels, Force and Brumbies were all horrible this year. Swap the Crusaders schedule with either of the Reds or the Stormers and they would've finished top and had the home semi/final. NZ was penalised for having better teams which is backwards. Everyone should play everyone the same amount of times.

 

[Wally]

Lets be honest the way the format is now definitely helped the Reds and Stormers. The Lions, Cheetahs, Rebels, Force and Brumbies were all horrible this year. Swap the Crusaders schedule with either of the Reds or the Stormers and they would've finished top and had the home semi/final. NZ was penalised for having better teams which is backwards. Everyone should play everyone the same amount of times.

Funny that the Waratahs and Brumbies managed to beat the Reds but the Chiefs, Blues and Crusaders couldn't. Not to mention that the Force played excellent football on both occasions against us.

 

[Bossco]

Yeah that was a bit of a stupid comment. Both the Lions and Cheetahs played some outstanding Rugby and pushed some of the top teams to the limit, but they were also limited by the players they have available. Compare the results they had to some of the star studded teams aka the Bulls who couldn't even make the playoffs.

Crusaders were poor but always looked like taking it. The Sharks just need some back's esp centres, would be great seeing them with Nonu or a few kiwi backs.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Nonsense.
The Final should be between the two best teams.
It willl be an all NZ affair

Of course the 2 best teams should be in the final. I just say it's not nice to see 2 countries being represented in a final. Oh well, if we follow your theory, it should be Reds-Stormers in Brisbane, since those 2 are the best teams this year

 

[Amobokoboko]

Funny that the Waratahs and Brumbies managed to beat the Reds but the Chiefs, Blues and Crusaders couldn't. Not to mention that the Force played excellent football on both occasions against us.

All do respect. The Reds were the better team against the Chiefs. But the Chiefs didn't finish 4 try opportunities and that was what cost them the game. The Reds were lucky that game.

 

[Amobokoboko]

Of course the 2 best teams should be in the final. I just say it's not nice to see 2 countries being represented in a final. Oh well, if we follow your theory, it should be Reds-Stormers in Brisbane, since those 2 are the best teams this year

That's what you get when using play offs.
Since this year the Belgian soccer competition started the play offs as well and all the high ranked teams were pro as it was an extra revenue but it was a lower ranked team that won the cup. Bummer.

 

[Wally]

All do respect. The Reds were the better team against the Chiefs. But the Chiefs didn't finish 4 try opportunities and that was what cost them the game. The Reds were lucky that game.

That's not true. Only a bad team would spoil 4 try opportunities. The Chiefs were the worse team of the two and didn't deserve to win. The Reds played exactly as they should have to get the win away from home in wet conditions. Deal with it.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Let's not go there again. NZ teams have too much quality to push them in the victim-role. Come on, Blues and Crusaders both made the play off semi's. The Reds have beaten the Bulls, Crusaders and Stormers. 3 semi-finalists of last year! The Stormers have had the most solid defence, conceding the least tries in the whole competition with 18, which is 9 less than the Crusaders, 14 less than the Reds.

The Reds and Stormers have travelled very well and deserved to be in the top 2. And the Crusaders are still right up there. Yes, they had to play the majority of their matches in Nelson, which is the home ground of Tasman, which is part of the franchise so it's not completely neutral ground or an away-game. I am getting a bit tired of people complaining how the Crusaders have played all matches as away matches this year. Come on!

If they would have played every match in Auckland, Dunedin or Wellington, then yes. But now, they've played matches still within the franchise area.

 

[Amobokoboko]

That's not true. Only a bad team would spoil 4 try opportunities. The Chiefs were the worse team of the two and didn't deserve to win. The Reds played exactly as they should have to get the win away from home in wet conditions. Deal with it.

I did start my post by saying that the Reds were the better team. I even didn't mention the poor referee. My point is that if the Reds would face a team that does finish opportunities it would take them a bit more effort to win it. As the Reds have been consistent thru out the season they deserve to be on the top of the ladder.