Super Rugby play-offs: Crusaders - Bulls in Christchurch (21/07/2012)

[Shovenose]

Sorry, for all of that I don't see where you get the statistic that:

Have I missed something.

Also I'm not disputing that there are people other than Mark Reason out there whom think McCaw is a cheat (for your great research into the world of tabloid journalism, when the NZ Herald is your reputable source...), any more than I'm disputing that there are people out there that are ignorent. For your nice pictures which show a player seemingly offside (although it's still difficult to extrapolate any kind of context from the pictures) I could if I was bothered (and I'm clearly not), go over just about any game and select a player and make him out to be a cheat. Richie McCaw gets the fine comb over his performances because he's from the most successful teams and is the best in his position. To highlight offside offences against McCaw do more to discredit referees than McCaw as a player, however most of those pictures don't show any context of whom was the tackler, where the gate was etc. You could also highlight mulipile players in those rucks whom are well and truly off their feet, not supporting their body weights and making no effort to roll away and lable every single one of them cheats (but no one would care, because they aren't the best openside in the world).

As others have mentioned, it would go the other way if South Africa had the best openside and were extremely successful. It comes down to people looking for an exscuse to blame another teams players when their own aren't able to make the same impact. As others have mentioned, people are now labeling Pocock a cheat, which is essentially shorthand for "better than our openside flanker".

Is this a bit clearer for you

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/untouchables/

 

[Shovenose]

There was an article on Green and Gold rugby about the penalties to yellow cards ratio after the 2010 Tri Nations. I think this is what Shovenose refers to.

http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/untouchables/


However of course, if one team concedes five penalties in the middle of the pitch they would unlikely get sin binned, whilst another team could concede one penalty for stamping on somebody's head and get sin binned. So the stats do not necessarily mean that the All Blacks deserved more yellow cards.

Sorry did not see your post but will this answer your question

Also you will see the tally for foul play was 0 percent. Botha got binned for what again. Aah killing the ball at the break down. Something someone got 4 final warnings for.

I got it now. Here's Shovenose's way of winning an argument:


1. Say someone is wrong
2. Try to prove your point by throwing a lot of if's and maybe's
3. Slowly but surely move the focus away from the initial debate
4. Come up with 5 or 6 other theories combined with statistics
5. Repeat steps 2, 3 and 4
6. The other person doesn't follow the whole debate anymore and quits
7. Shovenose thinks he is right

Why do you call everything a argument? When a person has a opinion he must have a reason for it. I just answer the questions for my reason. Please attack the content not the person. Normally what follows is the grammar attacks.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Basically, what you are saying is that South Africa was sh*t during the 2011 Tri Nations. Which was true by the way

 

[Shovenose]

Basically, what you are saying is that South Africa was sh*t during the 2011 Tri Nations. Which was true by the way

Not at all.

So far in the two Tri-Nations games, we have seen a head butt go unpunished, along with a spear tackle from Jean de Villiers and a shoulder charge from Rene Ranger - actions that can seriously hurt the victims.

Yet Bakkies Botha has been sent to the sin bin for killing the ball, while the All Blacks were able to do this only under threat and without serious sanction in Wellington. Rossouw received a yellow for a bit of child's play that endangered no one.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10659716

Being **** has nothing to do with one team allowed to get away with repeated infringements and the others not. Not only 1 year but its been happening for years. But the main point is that Mr. McCaw can call others "filthy" etc etc but people are called idiots when the favor is returned. Anyone remember what happened last time the Crusaders and Bulls played and the accusations afterwards as well as the reactions to it?

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

People should just ignore the whole sh*tload of allegations both ways. It's starting to sound more and more like football. Rugby is a beautiful game, referees are human (yes, I know, it sounds weird but they are) and decisions go both ways.

The whole bar-chart with the penalties/yellow card ratio is BS. Maybe SA and Australia get more yellow cards since they concede more penalties in their own 22, while NZ are offside a lot at the breakdown all over the field, even on attack.

Look at the penalties of each team inside their own 22, see what that says. Stats are great, but can be interpreted several ways.

 

[Shovenose]

People should just ignore the whole sh*tload of allegations both ways. It's starting to sound more and more like football. Rugby is a beautiful game, referees are human (yes, I know, it sounds weird but they are) and decisions go both ways.

The whole bar-chart with the penalties/yellow card ratio is BS. Maybe SA and Australia get more yellow cards since they concede more penalties in their own 22, while NZ are offside a lot at the breakdown all over the field, even on attack.

Look at the penalties of each team inside their own 22, see what that says. Stats are great, but can be interpreted several ways.

Totally agree. Blame the IRB trying to change rugby to suite only two teams style of play. You can not change the rules which nullifies most teams game plan and suite the others. Where is that fair contest the IRB talk so much about. Referees decisions is mostly correct. Its the fans that struggle to understand the it thanks again to the IRB trying to rugby into a technical chess game where what ever decision the referee makes there is a law to prove him right. Most laws if you look closely a refeeree cannot be wrong.

As for the YC the eyes don't lie. Everyone saw Rolland penalize McCaw and gave him 4 warnings. Everyone saw SA winning the Tri nations via the boot. Morne Steyn scored 31 points against NZ which was 8 penalties and 1 try. How many times have we won just with the boot by popping over 3? That numbers still say South Africa has conceded less penalties than the other teams and has 3 times more YC than NZ. If you look at the the type of penalties the foul play column say 0 percent. Does not matter how you spin it repeated infringements are repeated infringements and why do the team doing less of those and not spoiling try scoring opportunities getting binned for those more?

 

[nickdnz]

Totally agree. Blame the IRB trying to change rugby to suite only two teams style of play. You can not change the rules which nullifies most teams game plan and suite the others. Where is that fair contest the IRB talk so much about. Referees decisions is mostly correct. Its the fans that struggle to understand the it thanks again to the IRB trying to rugby into a technical chess game where what ever decision the referee makes there is a law to prove him right. Most laws if you look closely a refeeree cannot be wrong.

As for the YC the eyes don't lie. Everyone saw Rolland penalize McCaw and gave him 4 warnings. Everyone saw SA winning the Tri nations via the boot. Morne Steyn scored 31 points against NZ which was 8 penalties and 1 try. How many times have we won just with the boot by popping over 3? That numbers still say South Africa has conceded less penalties than the other teams and has 3 times more YC than NZ. If you look at the the type of penalties the foul play column say 0 percent. Does not matter how you spin it repeated infringements are repeated infringements and why do the team doing less of those and not spoiling try scoring opportunities getting binned for those more?

Wow, now it's the IRB's fault because somehow Australia and New Zealand can dictate their decisions? Wales and Ireland both play a fairly expansive game. I think rugby itself has become a more attractive product since the kick-fests of 2009 ended and viewing figures and the fact the game is growing larger in a world market seem to support that. More people watch rugby for the tries, so rule interpretations that discourage being in possession of the ball do nothing to help that.

Didn't see the bar chart or any link to it in your post. Regardless as others (all of whom have been South African) have been pointed out, context is entirely relevant to a decision. Even presuming these statistics are accurate, they don't take into account the circumstances in which the decision is made. I could take those same statistics and argue that South Africa commit more flagrant fouls. You have to use statistics like a drunken man uses lamposts...for support rather than illumination (Andrew Lang quote). A cynical infringment on the five metre line is going to earn a yellow card every time.

Which match are you talking about in regards to Allan Rolland? I presume All Blacks v Springboks in Wellington 2011? I understand getting upset by a 40-7 scoreline, but you've got to let it go.

In regards to the other point I bolded, yes you're right. That's why rugby has Laws instead of Rules. It's a too complicated game with too much grey area that so much of it has to be left up to interpretations. Because of this players like Richie McCaw play to the interpretations of the laws by a referee.

Anyway, Ezequiel is right. I don't know what your arguing anymore, other than it's unfair that New Zealand seem to be privleged by referees. You're yet to offer any reasons why that may be except all referees like New Zealand more (despite none being from New Zealand) or big bad Richie McCaw bullies referees. I'd love to hear your suggestions as to why, or rather how, New Zealand seems to have such influence over the IRB and their referees. I'm sure it will be as imaginative as it will be mental.

And yes, I think it's safe to call this a debate or an argument or w/e, as you are arguing a point and I'm not agreeing. A discussion implies a central view or rounded approach, something I think neither of us have.

 

[Darwin]

Right, if I may I'd like to get back talking about the match this weekend, as it is far more interesting than an article written by an obvious WUM.

I'm really looking forwards to the battle up front, as I think both teams are strong in this area. I'd actually give the Crusaders the edge in the front row - while I like Greyling I think Owen Franks has an obvious advantage over him, while I also think Crockett has an edge over Kruger, though Crockett is still prone to getting penalized quite a bit at scrum time. I think Flynn and Ralepelle are pretty evenly matched, though I do worry a bit about Flynn's lineout throwing in pressure matches. I think the locking combinations are pretty evenly matched too. Both are well balanced with a genuine TH lock (Romano and van der Merwe) and a genuine LH lock (Whitelock and Kruger). The Crusaders usually have a pretty efficient lineout, but I do feel this is one area where the Bulls may look to target them, as Flynn is prone to the odd poor throwing game, the Crusaders are missing Read who is usually one of their main lineout targets (along with Whitelock), and the Bulls have some very good lineout exponents (Kruger and Spies in particular)

Even with Read out I think the Crusaders have an edge in the loose-forwards mainly as I think they have a better balanced trio (though their trio isn't perfectly balanced itself in my opinion). I feel Whitelock and D Potgieter sort of cancel each other out - both are hard working players who do the basics right, but aren't that dynamic. The Bulls then have two strong ball runners in Spies and J Potgieter, while the Crusaders have two opensides in Todd and McCaw. The Bulls should be able to make plenty of yards with ball in hand, though they may struggle to compete at the breakdown with the Crusaders. In contrast I'd expect he Crusaders to have an obvious edge at the breakdown, but I'm not sure whether they have enough strong ball runners to get them front foot ball for their backline - Romano and McCaw are both strong ball runner, but they will need the likes of Flynn, Crockett, G Whiteock, and Todd to really step up in this department (which they do occasionally, but not really on a consistent basis).

I think the Crusaders have an advantage in the halves too. While I'd consider Hougaard a better rugby player than Ellis, I don't know whether I'd consider him a better halfback. He is clearly a better runner with ball in hand (and is very dangerous on the counter-attack), is a great defensive halfback (much better than Ellis), but I think he is still learning the intricacies of halfback play. Ellis clearly has a stronger kicking game, and his option taking is better - it will certainly be an interesting match-up between these two. Carter vs Steyn isn't really a contest in my opinon, though it will be interesting to see whether Steyn brings his goal-kicking boots this week!

I would suggest that the Crusaders have a slight edge in the mid-field, but I'm starting to sound a tad biased! You know what you are going to get from Olivier - hard running, and plenty of tackling. I've been very impressed with Engelbrecht recently - he seems to have some great pace (I understand he is also a wing...)! I'm a bit of a fan of Crotty - I don't think he is of test standard, but he is very good at this level as he is a hard working player who does the basics right and makes few mistakes. Fruean needs a big game - he is still devastating on attack with ball in hand, but he defense doesn't seemed to have improved much, as he still charges out of the line far too often leaving a big gap for the opposition to exploit.

Guildford made quite a few errors last week, but looks on the verge of scoring a lot of tries - he always seems to be near the ball when the Crusaders get close to the opposition try-line! I think he has a clear edge on Ndungane, who is reliable, but does lack a bit of pace. On the other wing we have the complete opposite situation, with the Bulls having a massive advantage in pace. Adam Whitelock is a very reliable defender, but is going to have to watch Basson very closely, as if given any space there is no way Whitelock will catch him. I'd expect the Bulls will look to target Whitelock a lot with their kicking so he (and Dagg) will have to be on their toes. Dagg hasn't really been at his best this season, but he is still a far better player than Kirchner in my opinion.

Overall I think the Crusaders have edges in most areas - not big edges, but when taken together I think the certainly deserve to be favorites. Given they are playing at home I'm picking them to win by 10-15 points, though wouldn't be surprised if it was much clear than that....

 

[admartian]

Looks like some SA fans are just _plain_Butthurt_and_Sour about the whole thing. :lol:

No hard feelings eh bokke?

 

[saderista]

Not at all.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10659716

Being **** has nothing to do with one team allowed to get away with repeated infringements and the others not. Not only 1 year but its been happening for years. But the main point is that Mr. McCaw can call others "filthy" etc etc but people are called idiots when the favor is returned. Anyone remember what happened last time the Crusaders and Bulls played and the accusations afterwards as well as the reactions to it?

I think the Saders are still waiting for an apology aren't they?

Have to say I don't remember Dr McCaw calling anybody filthy before.

Anyway, I hope the game is a beauty, it usually is when these two teams meet, I am surprised the game hasn't sold out yet, maybe the cold weather is putting people off.

 

[Draggs]

Jaco Peyper, oh dear...

 

[welshglory]

Debatable penalty there

 

[austingtir]

^^ the prop offside? How so?

The bulls are getting dominated so far in this game. Im really suprised even Mccaw is looking pretty onto it in this game.

 

[welshglory]

I was talking about Kirchner's penalty

 

[Hairy Scot]

When will these bl**dy commentators learn that allude is not a synonym for mention!!!

 

[welshglory]

Steyn and Hougaard are having shockers

 

[big ginger 8]

Nice try.

 

[dudeabides]

Nice one, Guildford.

 

[austingtir]

The bulls look incredibly out of sorts to me. This could be an absolute bath of tries to the saders.

 

[welshglory]

Not so nice one Guilford