Super Rugby: Stormers vs. Crusaders in Cape Town (30/03/2013)

[Darwin]

Dagg is a loss for the Crusaders (mainly as Guildford was so poor last weekend!), though Marshall plays better rugby at fullback than on the wing.

 

[Rhyer]

Dagg in the team had, at least they had some X-factor and form, they have absolutely nothing now and will be outplayed in every facet of the game. This is a team that beat the Chiefs (although controversially) and the Brumbies. I don't see a severely depleted Crusaders team, whose strategy has always been to rely on the big names, winning this one. Stormers by 15+.

This is a home game for both teams. The Stormers vs The Cape Crusaders. Should be a cracking one.

Don't understand this comment.

 

[Darwin]

Dagg in the team had, at least they had some X-factor and form, they have absolutely nothing now and will be outplayed in every facet of the game. This is a team that beat the Chiefs (although controversially) and the Brumbies. I don't see a severely depleted Crusaders team, whose strategy has always been to rely on the big names, winning this one. Stormers by 15+.



Don't understand this comment.

I don't know about this. The Crusaders - probably more than any other team in Super Rugby - have traditionally relied on team work rather than the brilliance of individual players to win matches. Yes they have had some outstanding players over recent times (McCaw, Read, Carter, SBW, Dagg etc), but there success has equally been built on hard-working grafters such as Flynn, George Whitelock, Todd, Crotty (or the likes of Thorne, Ralph, and even Blackadder himself in years gone by). My mind goes back to the 2011 clash in Cape Town, where the Crusaders managed to win despite starting the match without Carter and McCaw, and losing four backline players (including Dagg) in the first half!

Though I do think the Stormers will start at slight favourites, I would be very surprised if they manage to win by 15 points, even against a depleted Crusaders side.

 

[Sker]

Dagg in the team had, at least they had some X-factor and form, they have absolutely nothing now and will be outplayed in every facet of the game. This is a team that beat the Chiefs (although controversially) and the Brumbies. I don't see a severely depleted Crusaders team, whose strategy has always been to rely on the big names, winning this one. Stormers by 15+.



Don't understand this comment.

Rhyer, a huge amount of Cape Townians are Crusaders/Chiefs(NZ) supporters. Stems from the ole Apartheid days.

Ofc they revert back to being WP supporters when it's Currie Cup time, but during SR they are usually behind the Crusaders/Chiefs

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Rhyer, a huge amount of Cape Townians are Crusaders/Chiefs(NZ) supporters. Stems from the ole Apartheid days.

Ofc they revert back to being WP supporters when it's Currie Cup time, but during SR they are usually behind the Crusaders/Chiefs

Supporting the Chiefs doesn't stem from the Apartheid days though. It's very recent and IMO just the Chiefs' new found success and SBW playing for them last year. Also I don't buy the whole supporting the Crusaders as being an off-shoot of supporting the ABs during Apartheid years as the Crusaders didn't exist back then. I call it plain band-wagoning and you'll inevitably find those same supporters painting their homes with the emblem of Man U. I know it sounds harsh but its a case of an entire group of people having an identity crisis.

 

[Sker]

Yes well, like Gregory House would say, people are idiots.

 

[daveypnz]

wow

 

[Amobokoboko]

Good win for the Saders.

 

[Sker]

This year it'll be a bit easier on my split loyalties when the Stormers play the Cheetahs in Bloem.

Cheetahs all the way

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I did not see that one coming... Good work Crusaders!

 

[tenpm]

Thought the Stormers were a bit unlucky there - the last tackle definitely looked high.

But this was one of those games where penalty decisions in the last minutes were crucial - the way the Crusaders were conceding penalty after penalty, if the Stormers had gone for the posts the outcome might have been different. Still, I'm very happy with the result.

The Crusaders's tactics were great. They played exactly how you should play against the Stormers - kick the ball behind the (excellent) defensive line and play for territory. I'm guessing Carter won't be available yet for the Sharks game, so it will be interesting to see how Bleyendaal plays.

 

[smartcooky]

This was a terrific game to watch; and the type of game that shows you don't always need a bucket load of tries and a point -a-minute to have an exciting rugby match.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Crusaders deserved victory.
Stormers caused their own downfall by missing 7 odd of their own line outs.
On this level and against such opposition erring on the basics make you loose close games
Still was a cracker of a game, massive defensively from both sides

 

[easy2288]

Crusaders must have spent of lots of time planning for the strategy for the game looking at the line outs won. Changes made to scrum half and fly half contribute greatly to the win as Stormers will be too familiar with tricks of Dan Carter and Andy Ellis. Of course all players performed one level above their norm. The last minute Dagg withdrawal also made the Stormers going back to drawing block again.

I always believe one the key reason ABs won the last world cup was the numerous fly half used and that made the opposition confused and do not know what to expect from the replacement fly half. Of course many members don't agree with me..

 

[Rhyer]

Crusaders must have spent of lots of time planning for the strategy for the game looking at the line outs won. Changes made to scrum half and fly half contribute greatly to the win as Stormers will be too familiar with tricks of Dan Carter and Andy Ellis. Of course all players performed one level above their norm. The last minute Dagg withdrawal also made the Stormers going back to drawing block again.

I always believe one the key reason ABs won the last world cup was the numerous fly half used and that made the opposition confused and do not know what to expect from the replacement fly half. Of course many members don't agree with me..

Not a bad theory actually.

 

[Darwin]

The key reason the AB's won the last RWC was because they were the best team in the world. By some margin. Call me crazy, but I reckon the AB's would still have won even if Dan Carter had been starting for them throughout the tournament

Anyways.... A very important win for the Crusaders. Just saw a replay, and I think this was a pretty typical fighting Crusaders performance. The key was clearly the dominance in the tight-forwards, particularly in the lineout (which stormer2012 predicted before the match). Sam Whitelock was obviously critical here, not only with his lineout dominance, but also with his work-rate around the park. Moody was solid in what was by far his biggest match ever, while Crockett really impressed too. George Whitelock lead from the front again - he has been in great form this season. Likewise Matt Todd had a great game - I have been really impressed with his running game this season. Luke Whitelock was solid at 8, while Taufua made an impact (as expected) when he came on.

Heinz did well at halfback, while Bleyendaal showed he is more than capable of controlling the game at this level. His flat kicks to the corner were generally very accurate, and were really effective against this Stormers side. Crotty showed maturity at 12 - he is never going to be a superstar, but he is a handy player at this level. The rest of the backline was pretty quiet, though Marshall had a couple of good runs again. Guildford still looked lost when he got the ball, but was a bit better than last weekend. The Crusaders will be hoping the injury to McNicholl is not as serious as it looked...

 

[Sker]

Imagine each one of those Whitelock brothers have 2-3 kids, and all of them grow up to be good enough for Superrugby. In 25-30 years we might see a team in the Super30 (I'm guessing) called "The Whitelocks"

Then again Rugby might then include lightsabres and riding on bears (which will replace dropgoals and scrums, to keep some people happy )

 

[easy2288]

The key reason the AB's won the last RWC was because they were the best team in the world. By some margin. Call me crazy, but I reckon the AB's would still have won even if Dan Carter had been starting for them throughout the tournament

Anyways.... A very important win for the Crusaders. Just saw a replay, and I think this was a pretty typical fighting Crusaders performance. The key was clearly the dominance in the tight-forwards, particularly in the lineout (which stormer2012 predicted before the match). Sam Whitelock was obviously critical here, not only with his lineout dominance, but also with his work-rate around the park. Moody was solid in what was by far his biggest match ever, while Crockett really impressed too. George Whitelock lead from the front again - he has been in great form this season. Likewise Matt Todd had a great game - I have been really impressed with his running game this season. Luke Whitelock was solid at 8, while Taufua made an impact (as expected) when he came on.

Heinz did well at halfback, while Bleyendaal showed he is more than capable of controlling the game at this level. His flat kicks to the corner were generally very accurate, and were really effective against this Stormers side. Crotty showed maturity at 12 - he is never going to be a superstar, but he is a handy player at this level. The rest of the backline was pretty quiet, though Marshall had a couple of good runs again. Guildford still looked lost when he got the ball, but was a bit better than last weekend. The Crusaders will be hoping the injury to McNicholl is not as serious as it looked...

Hi Darwin,

Great elaboration for my earlier comments " Of course all players performed one level above their norm"

 

[smartcooky]

I always believe one the key reason ABs won the last world cup was the numerous fly half used and that made the opposition confused and do not know what to expect from the replacement fly half. Of course many members don't agree with me..

You're right, I don't agree with that at all.

We started the final with the third choice 10, and ended it with the fourth choice 10, neither of whom had even selected in the initial WC squad. How can that be anything but a big disadvantage?

The ABs started the tournament with DC and Colin Slade, and both would have got similar game time even if DC had not been injured, so it not as if DC would have been our only 10.

The key reason the AB's won the last RWC was because they were the best team in the world. By some margin. Call me crazy, but I reckon the AB's would still have won even if Dan Carter had been starting for them throughout the tournament

Ted reckons they would have won the final by 15 points with DC at 10. For starters, its less likely that DC would have missed the two penalty kicks that Piri missed, and his general round the field play is so much better than the player we ended up with. Beaver has his fans, but really, he just a workmanlike 10; not much more than a shoveller.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Very frustating game to have watched from the stands. I guess the most frustrating was seeing Fourie pre-match practicing the line-out through-ins and hitting the tackle bag 2 out of 3 times. When your target is 2.08m tall with an even more impressive reach why through it in low and straight? Seriously frustrating. We are really missing Ntubeni whom I consider our best 2. Etzebeth to take the pressure off at the line-out would help as well. As would some useful props.

Good win for the Crusaders away fromhome and against a fellow contender for that 4rth to 6th spot it was doubly important. Both teams without key players but the Crusaders showed they had the better depth and were just more accurate on the day.

On a side note and I'm not blaming the ref or speaking about this game specifically but I would really love for neutral refs to return. Just think it makes more sense ITO the competition.