Reds 18 - 13 Crusaders

First topic message reminder :

So the Reds out score the Saders two tries to one, to lift the first Super 15 trophy. A worrying omen for the world cup? A New zealand team choke in the final to an Aussie team...

Also a very costly day for the planet rugby tipster! He put £1000 on the Crusaders to win!

disneychilly,

Yes, had similar experiences with the worst kind when in far flung places.

You just want to do/say something...or disappear or dissolve.

I was on a train to Czech from Berlin. Obnoxious lot in cabin nearby...could hear every loud word. At the border it all went quiet. Next thing I saw as the train pulled away were these idiots standing on the platform feeling sorry for themselves. It seems as if one of them had accidently left their passport back in the hotel in Berlin. Guard just told them to get off - no excuses, hier!

Peace from then onwards!

ha ha OzT...Feb 1, 1981. 30th anniversary earlier this year!

what's 10 years ... 20, 30 years....

Linebreaker wrote:

ha ha OzT...Feb 1, 1981. 30th anniversary earlier this year!

It must be the Brian McKechnie factor. People still bring up the circumstances leading to his penalty goal in 1978 too

We have been able to joke about it for a while at least https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UscXRYKz4

HA HA HA HAHA !!!!

Seen it before but still makes me laugh!!

Tough, strictly, he would have been out lbw as the box is part of his equipment, and hit that before the bat, and there was no way that ball was going to go over the stump... in line with middle... hmmm

Kiwireddevil wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:

ha ha OzT...Feb 1, 1981. 30th anniversary earlier this year!

It must be the Brian McKechnie factor. People still bring up the circumstances leading to his penalty goal in 1978 too

We have been able to joke about it for a while at least https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7UscXRYKz4

Same here kiwi...wait for the ending.

hawkeye underam

Linebreaker wrote:

Same here kiwi...wait for the ending.

hawkeye underam

Was a little disappointed with the final. Thought it was disjointed and there were a lot of errors. Compared to the Hcup final it wasn't particularly memorable. Certainly the Semis were a little more interesting despite both being quite one sided. Cooper is a great player but when in a tight game he is no Dan Carter. Exciting player though.

Pot Hale wrote:"NH sides tend to avoid contest at the breakdown and almost invariably concede possession, turn overs are rare and penalties are frequent. The situation is generally static and involves few players. SH rugby is typified by a greater contest in this area, mire physicality and hence more mess. "

This is not an accurate summary at all of NH rugby. Is this assertion meant to apply to all club rugby across the three different leagues, H Cup, and to the 6 Nations?

Not all. I was merely trying to start a good fight because I was a bit bored. You make an excellent point that of course this generalisation is utterly baseless, and in fact utterly untrue.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

When did I make an excuse? I seem to recall saying exactly the opposite. Merely saying the Crusaders couldn't squeeze the Reds as they did in the Semi. Missing an astonishing number of first up tackles and allowing too many line breaks. This is exactly what didn't happen last week. Whether that's the Reds being "too good to tackle" or the defence being a bit lax is hard to tell. Also the line out was sloppy and too much possession was yielded unnecessarily. On their day, the Crusaders would have made those tackles, hit their jumpers and won the game. That's not an excuse. It's just a fact. As it was, they didn't and the Reds won. I don't have a problem with that. Why do you?

GG
The problem is that because Kiwi rugby supporters are so used to winning, and have such a high expectation of winning, that when they lose they suffer from the perception of being terribly ungracious, churlish, and boring in defeat. [This is not a comment about other Kiwi people on this website who I find in the main refreshingly balanced and fair minded]. When you lose it is the referee's fault or your team lost due to poor play/errors/out of form rather than the superior play of the other side. Your argument is "would of, could of, should of, what if, if only then" etc. Akin to saying if Cooper had have done what he did against the blues the week before Reds would have won by 25 points instead of 5 points. It is a BS argument as it hypothetical theorising. All that matters is what happened on the day. That is the only fact. To use a typical Kiwi argument, I could say Crusaders errors were caused by pressure and Reds handled the pressure the better. Before the game Reds were told by fans over the ditch they have no class, they are a one man team, they are no names, no experience, no good on paper etc. They WON. Full stop. Man up and move on.

Yep, fair call Rob and I did exactly that. The final was all about the reds ability to apply immense pressure and that saw them the better team in the end. Saders had by far the more experienced team on paper but as we all know it was played on the green blades of Suncorp, a fortress.

Good for SH Rugby, good for the 3N and the upcoming World cup.

Bring it on I say...

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

When did I make an excuse? I seem to recall saying exactly the opposite. Merely saying the Crusaders couldn't squeeze the Reds as they did in the Semi. Missing an astonishing number of first up tackles and allowing too many line breaks. This is exactly what didn't happen last week. Whether that's the Reds being "too good to tackle" or the defence being a bit lax is hard to tell. Also the line out was sloppy and too much possession was yielded unnecessarily. On their day, the Crusaders would have made those tackles, hit their jumpers and won the game. That's not an excuse. It's just a fact. As it was, they didn't and the Reds won. I don't have a problem with that. Why do you?

GG
The problem is that because Kiwi rugby supporters are so used to winning, and have such a high expectation of winning, that when they lose they suffer from the perception of being terribly ungracious, churlish, and boring in defeat. [This is not a comment about other Kiwi people on this website who I find in the main refreshingly balanced and fair minded]. When you lose it is the referee's fault or your team lost due to poor play/errors/out of form rather than the superior play of the other side. Your argument is "would of, could of, should of, what if, if only then" etc. Akin to saying if Cooper had have done what he did against the blues the week before Reds would have won by 25 points instead of 5 points. It is a BS argument as it hypothetical theorising. All that matters is what happened on the day. That is the only fact. To use a typical Kiwi argument, I could say Crusaders errors were caused by pressure and Reds handled the pressure the better. Before the game Reds were told by fans over the ditch they have no class, they are a one man team, they are no names, no experience, no good on paper etc. They WON. Full stop. Man up and move on.

Right on Rob, that's what I was saying and I must apologise the the good Kiwi here who are decent. The Reds were the best and even on their day the Crusaders would not have won.

Hey! tell me why is it OK for the Kiwi's to still whinge about the underarm farce but the Welsh can not whinge about the Andy H lione out affair around the same time ??

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

When did I make an excuse? I seem to recall saying exactly the opposite. Merely saying the Crusaders couldn't squeeze the Reds as they did in the Semi. Missing an astonishing number of first up tackles and allowing too many line breaks. This is exactly what didn't happen last week. Whether that's the Reds being "too good to tackle" or the defence being a bit lax is hard to tell. Also the line out was sloppy and too much possession was yielded unnecessarily. On their day, the Crusaders would have made those tackles, hit their jumpers and won the game. That's not an excuse. It's just a fact. As it was, they didn't and the Reds won. I don't have a problem with that. Why do you?

GG
The problem is that because Kiwi rugby supporters are so used to winning, and have such a high expectation of winning, that when they lose they suffer from the perception of being terribly ungracious, churlish, and boring in defeat. [This is not a comment about other Kiwi people on this website who I find in the main refreshingly balanced and fair minded]. When you lose it is the referee's fault or your team lost due to poor play/errors/out of form rather than the superior play of the other side. Your argument is "would of, could of, should of, what if, if only then" etc. Akin to saying if Cooper had have done what he did against the blues the week before Reds would have won by 25 points instead of 5 points. It is a BS argument as it hypothetical theorising. All that matters is what happened on the day. That is the only fact. To use a typical Kiwi argument, I could say Crusaders errors were caused by pressure and Reds handled the pressure the better. Before the game Reds were told by fans over the ditch they have no class, they are a one man team, they are no names, no experience, no good on paper etc. They WON. Full stop. Man up and move on.

Right on Rob, that's what I was saying and I must apologise the the good Kiwi here who are decent. The Reds were the best and even on their day the Crusaders would not have won.

Hey! tell me why is it OK for the Kiwi's to still whinge about the underarm farce but the Welsh can not whinge about the Andy H lione out affair around the same time ??

John, I pointed out yesterday that Kiwis were still allowed to whinge about the underarm because the Welsh still complained about the "Other McKechnie Incident" Great minds

On reflection, is anyone else amazed at how the Reds were able to win even though Cooper and Genia (bar that wonderful try) put in below par performances? Underlines the team ethic the Reds have fostered and makes the feat even more impressive!

I thought this was one of the more entertaining games I've seen for a while - two very good teams. I don't watch enough super 15 to know the teams that well, but from what I could see thing were pretty even in the set piece and at the breakdown - with the Reds putting a few more players in. The game turned on a couple of plays - individual brilliance by Genia and the left wing, whilst the Crusaders ignored an big overlap taking only 3 rather than the 7.

The Crusaders made way too many errors and missed tackles and the Red's looked more threatening ball in hand. The best team one on the day. On Carter and Cooper - very different players. You don't know what Cooper will do next and that's half the problem. Going into a WC I'd rather have Carter in my team - every time.

Kiwireddevil wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

When did I make an excuse? I seem to recall saying exactly the opposite. Merely saying the Crusaders couldn't squeeze the Reds as they did in the Semi. Missing an astonishing number of first up tackles and allowing too many line breaks. This is exactly what didn't happen last week. Whether that's the Reds being "too good to tackle" or the defence being a bit lax is hard to tell. Also the line out was sloppy and too much possession was yielded unnecessarily. On their day, the Crusaders would have made those tackles, hit their jumpers and won the game. That's not an excuse. It's just a fact. As it was, they didn't and the Reds won. I don't have a problem with that. Why do you?

GG
The problem is that because Kiwi rugby supporters are so used to winning, and have such a high expectation of winning, that when they lose they suffer from the perception of being terribly ungracious, churlish, and boring in defeat. [This is not a comment about other Kiwi people on this website who I find in the main refreshingly balanced and fair minded]. When you lose it is the referee's fault or your team lost due to poor play/errors/out of form rather than the superior play of the other side. Your argument is "would of, could of, should of, what if, if only then" etc. Akin to saying if Cooper had have done what he did against the blues the week before Reds would have won by 25 points instead of 5 points. It is a BS argument as it hypothetical theorising. All that matters is what happened on the day. That is the only fact. To use a typical Kiwi argument, I could say Crusaders errors were caused by pressure and Reds handled the pressure the better. Before the game Reds were told by fans over the ditch they have no class, they are a one man team, they are no names, no experience, no good on paper etc. They WON. Full stop. Man up and move on.

Right on Rob, that's what I was saying and I must apologise the the good Kiwi here who are decent. The Reds were the best and even on their day the Crusaders would not have won.

Hey! tell me why is it OK for the Kiwi's to still whinge about the underarm farce but the Welsh can not whinge about the Andy H lione out affair around the same time ??

John, I pointed out yesterday that Kiwis were still allowed to whinge about the underarm because the Welsh still complained about the "Other McKechnie Incident" Great minds

I say chaps, steady on...I didn't make a single excuse for the Crusaders at all. I think you are guilty of prejudice here. I merely pointed out that the Crusaders had not been their usual suffocating best. They missed more tackles in that game than they had all season and couldn't hit a barn door with a lineout throw. Give Digby, Cooper and Genia ball and space and they'll eventually turn it into points... This isn't making excuses, it's just stating facts. I've said several times fair play to the Reds and they deserved the win based on the performance and the season. They've just been more accurate.

Anyone else think Cooper could well have a Billy Slater moment in the final?

Yes. I said it before. Cooper is a poor man's Spencer.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Yes. I said it before. Cooper is a poor man's Spencer.

Cooper won , Carter didn't. Your opinion seems to lack any credibility with most here.

Carter is losing it, that showed in the final.

Spencer won titles as well as being flaky under pressure. Think GG's comparison isn't that far off the mark.

Agree Carter made some uncharacteristic errors, but his goalkicking was good and he did score a brilliant try himself. Don't put him out to pasture just yet.

Yeah but Cooper is a mile better than Spencer.

Cooper will be the best 10 in the world in no more than 2 years.

Cooper is probably better than Spencer but he isn't that good an OH. He has great skill and flair but he falls short in some of the most basic OH attributes such as goal kicking and tackling and his influence fades in tight games as seen in the final. Carter on the other hand never disappoints.

and there's always a chance of throwing a Carlos-like intercept pass... but hopefully not in this upcoming WC though.

I'm sure it's on the menu for the other teams.

Meh. Remember the endless media rapture when Spencer sent that no-look through-the-legs pass to Siti, or was it Rokocoko on the wing in 2003 as the ABs eased past SA? Then the no-look passes and the goose-step...it all looked so good.

They used terms like the X-factor then, and King Carlos and talked on about how he was the envy of the world, and would be the greatest 10 ever.

Then one idiotic, malconstrued cut out pass in a semi is intercepted and whomp. Gone. Remember who was sitting on the sidelines that day? Yep. Carter.

Cooper. He's cut from the same cloth.

I'm hoping it will be Ireland who punish Cooper.

They're both high risk players cut from a similar cloth, I agree GG. What a time to do it...poor Carlos.

Now, now red_stag...what's he ever done to Ireland....yet?
It will be a great spectacle that game, hopefully.

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

.
Yes they were the better team on the day welsh. Most kiwis have said that. But in an exceptional year, some facts.
-Reds topped table by 5 points over saders
-Reds played the worst team the rebels twice
-saders did not play rebels at all.
-Saders played their home matches at timaru, nelson, wellington and london. None at their home base
-reds played all their home games at suncorp
-crusaders travelled over 100k to get to and from their matches
-reds possibly travelled 15k. Not sure.

How many points do you think thats worth? 5?

Now. With a more even draw and no earthquakes, I think you can (well most people could- even non kiwis) safely assume that the the 5 point margin would have been less and reds would not have been given an all home finals run
in the end, the saders lost by 5 points at reds fortess after historically winning 2 knockout matches in 2 different continents- a first.

No mention of the home advantage giving a home team 'at least 10 point start' bizo- which clearly for most of the top teams was the case- not many lost at home- reds being one of them'

To put that down to 'kiwi excuses' is a joke.

Did the reds deserve the win? absolutely.

Were the reds the best sxv team of 2011?

Possibly not.

Is it a scare for the abs come 3N? No way. In fact i think to come through all that and lose the final by 5 is nothing short of miraculous and fares well for the resolve of Kiwi's despite the obstacles thrown at them.

Excuses? maybe some losses welsh. But not that one. I note many kiwis gave congratulated the reds. You however have selected the one kiwi offering excuses. Havnt seen your comments on the crusaders efforts either?
Maybe theyre here somewhere but is that mr pot and mr kettle over there?

Sheesh. For the last time, I wasn't offering excuses. Even in the post quoted.

I simply said that the Crusaders weren't able to suffocate the Reds as they had done to teams in the previous two knock out games. I said it wasn't possible to say whether the 'sader's defence had been abnormally poor, or whether the Red's attack had been lethally unstoppable. The Crusader's missed a lot of first up tackles, and suffered almost twice as many line breaks than they did in the entire season.

How is that "making excuses"?

Interestingly the Reds made one more line break than the Crusaders, and lost by one try. Seems to sum the entire game up to me.

Taylorman wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

.
Yes they were the better team on the day welsh. Most kiwis have said that. But in an exceptional year, some facts.
-Reds topped table by 5 points over saders
-Reds played the worst team the rebels twice
-saders did not play rebels at all.
-Saders played their home matches at timaru, nelson, wellington and london. None at their home base
-reds played all their home games at suncorp
-crusaders travelled over 100k to get to and from their matches
-reds possibly travelled 15k. Not sure.

How many points do you think thats worth? 5?

Now. With a more even draw and no earthquakes, I think you can (well most people could- even non kiwis) safely assume that the the 5 point margin would have been less and reds would not have been given an all home finals run
in the end, the saders lost by 5 points at reds fortess after historically winning 2 knockout matches in 2 different continents- a first.

No mention of the home advantage giving a home team 'at least 10 point start' bizo- which clearly for most of the top teams was the case- not many lost at home- reds being one of them'

To put that down to 'kiwi excuses' is a joke.

Did the reds deserve the win? absolutely.

Were the reds the best sxv team of 2011?

Possibly not.

Is it a scare for the abs come 3N? No way. In fact i think to come through all that and lose the final by 5 is nothing short of miraculous and fares well for the resolve of Kiwi's despite the obstacles thrown at them.

Excuses? maybe some losses welsh. But not that one. I note many kiwis gave congratulated the reds. You however have selected the one kiwi offering excuses. Havnt seen your comments on the crusaders efforts either?
Maybe theyre here somewhere but is that mr pot and mr kettle over there?

Groan. You guys just cannot help yourselves!

Crusaders were incredible this year given their circumstances.

However:

The fact that Kiwis have congratulated the Reds hardly erases all these yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but rationalisations of yours.

Yes we know about the earthquakes (truly tragic), the away games, hard draws, the travel, the fatigue - about a million times.

These confluence of factors and the Reds play contributed to the fact that the Crusaders :

1. Did not win the final because a better team beat them; and

2. Were not the best team in Super Rugby this year. If they were the best team they would have i) finished top of the table and ii) won the competition.

And now you slip in the "were Reds the best team? Possibly not" A polite but backhanded way of saying "you won but you were not the best team".

To be the best team you have win all your knock out games and Crusaders did not. Now, you want to twist this around and say if all these things had not happened to the Crusaders then we would have got more points, we would finished on top, we would have had a home final and final and we would have won.

It's just garbage. If, if if if if and if if if if if then. It is another way of presenting excuses. Excuses are an explanation for why someone does not perform to expectations.

It is what what irks me about Kiwi supporters in general. I know you hate to lose. But we have been losing for years. Then we win. And its yeah but.

Suck it up boys. I know you're hurt - I feel the hurt.

But man up and stop making making excuses.

Rob B wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

.
Yes they were the better team on the day welsh. Most kiwis have said that. But in an exceptional year, some facts.
-Reds topped table by 5 points over saders
-Reds played the worst team the rebels twice
-saders did not play rebels at all.
-Saders played their home matches at timaru, nelson, wellington and london. None at their home base
-reds played all their home games at suncorp
-crusaders travelled over 100k to get to and from their matches
-reds possibly travelled 15k. Not sure.

How many points do you think thats worth? 5?

Now. With a more even draw and no earthquakes, I think you can (well most people could- even non kiwis) safely assume that the the 5 point margin would have been less and reds would not have been given an all home finals run
in the end, the saders lost by 5 points at reds fortess after historically winning 2 knockout matches in 2 different continents- a first.

No mention of the home advantage giving a home team 'at least 10 point start' bizo- which clearly for most of the top teams was the case- not many lost at home- reds being one of them'

To put that down to 'kiwi excuses' is a joke.

Did the reds deserve the win? absolutely.

Were the reds the best sxv team of 2011?

Possibly not.

Is it a scare for the abs come 3N? No way. In fact i think to come through all that and lose the final by 5 is nothing short of miraculous and fares well for the resolve of Kiwi's despite the obstacles thrown at them.

Excuses? maybe some losses welsh. But not that one. I note many kiwis gave congratulated the reds. You however have selected the one kiwi offering excuses. Havnt seen your comments on the crusaders efforts either?
Maybe theyre here somewhere but is that mr pot and mr kettle over there?

Groan. You guys just cannot help yourselves!

Crusaders were incredible this year given their circumstances.

However:

The fact that Kiwis have congratulated the Reds hardly erases all these yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but rationalisations of yours.

Yes we know about the earthquakes (truly tragic), the away games, hard draws, the travel, the fatigue - about a million times.

These confluence of factors and the Reds play contributed to the fact that the Crusaders :

1. Did not win the final because a better team beat them; and

2. Were not the best team in Super Rugby this year. If they were the best team they would have i) finished top of the table and ii) won the competition.

And now you slip in the "were Reds the best team? Possibly not" A polite but backhanded way of saying "you won but you were not the best team".

To be the best team you have win all your knock out games and Crusaders did not. Now, you want to twist this around and say if all these things had not happened to the Crusaders then we would have got more points, we would finished on top, we would have had a home final and final and we would have won.

It's just garbage. If, if if if if and if if if if if then. It is another way of presenting excuses. Excuses are an explanation for why someone does not perform to expectations.

It is what what irks me about Kiwi supporters in general. I know you hate to lose. But we have been losing for years. Then we win. And its yeah but.

Suck it up boys. I know you're hurt - I feel the hurt.

But man up and stop making making excuses.

Its very similar to what the english induge in every year about the pro 12 they get in the heinken and then make up up a list of excuses about why they cant win the competition

Rob B wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

welshjohn369 wrote:

Rob B wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote: On their day the Crusaders would have squeezed the life out of the Reds, but they just weren't accurate enough in defence or at the set piece.

Garbage.

GG talking his usual blinkered self opinionated poo. He sees things that no one else does. Unfortunately a typical response from a Kiwi when a NZ tea, loses, there MUST be an excuse, there is NEVER the sense that the other team was better. The REDS were GG get over it.

.
Yes they were the better team on the day welsh. Most kiwis have said that. But in an exceptional year, some facts.
-Reds topped table by 5 points over saders
-Reds played the worst team the rebels twice
-saders did not play rebels at all.
-Saders played their home matches at timaru, nelson, wellington and london. None at their home base
-reds played all their home games at suncorp
-crusaders travelled over 100k to get to and from their matches
-reds possibly travelled 15k. Not sure.

How many points do you think thats worth? 5?

Now. With a more even draw and no earthquakes, I think you can (well most people could- even non kiwis) safely assume that the the 5 point margin would have been less and reds would not have been given an all home finals run
in the end, the saders lost by 5 points at reds fortess after historically winning 2 knockout matches in 2 different continents- a first.

No mention of the home advantage giving a home team 'at least 10 point start' bizo- which clearly for most of the top teams was the case- not many lost at home- reds being one of them'

To put that down to 'kiwi excuses' is a joke.

Did the reds deserve the win? absolutely.

Were the reds the best sxv team of 2011?

Possibly not.

Is it a scare for the abs come 3N? No way. In fact i think to come through all that and lose the final by 5 is nothing short of miraculous and fares well for the resolve of Kiwi's despite the obstacles thrown at them.

Excuses? maybe some losses welsh. But not that one. I note many kiwis gave congratulated the reds. You however have selected the one kiwi offering excuses. Havnt seen your comments on the crusaders efforts either?
Maybe theyre here somewhere but is that mr pot and mr kettle over there?

Groan. You guys just cannot help yourselves!

Crusaders were incredible this year given their circumstances.

However:

The fact that Kiwis have congratulated the Reds hardly erases all these yeah but, yeah but, yeah but, yeah but rationalisations of yours.

Yes we know about the earthquakes (truly tragic), the away games, hard draws, the travel, the fatigue - about a million times.

These confluence of factors and the Reds play contributed to the fact that the Crusaders :

1. Did not win the final because a better team beat them; and

2. Were not the best team in Super Rugby this year. If they were the best team they would have i) finished top of the table and ii) won the competition.

And now you slip in the "were Reds the best team? Possibly not" A polite but backhanded way of saying "you won but you were not the best team".

To be the best team you have win all your knock out games and Crusaders did not. Now, you want to twist this around and say if all these things had not happened to the Crusaders then we would have got more points, we would finished on top, we would have had a home final and final and we would have won.

It's just garbage. If, if if if if and if if if if if then. It is another way of presenting excuses. Excuses are an explanation for why someone does not perform to expectations.

It is what what irks me about Kiwi supporters in general. I know you hate to lose. But we have been losing for years. Then we win. And its yeah but.

Suck it up boys. I know you're hurt - I feel the hurt.

But man up and stop making making excuses.

Well said Rob.

Noone forced the 'Saders to play in London did they? They may not have played in CHristchurch but they played AT HOME in the provinces the team is picked from, I do not feel that is a good excuse.

The Reds played the Rebels twice because that was the rule within the countries.

As said on the day they were beaten by the better team simple as.

I understand where you are coming from. I don't think anyone is saying that the Reds weren't the best side on the day and didn't win the competition. You play within the compatition as it stands. I think they are a good team and deserved winners of the tournement. I particularly enjoy watching the Genia/Cooper combo in full flight.

However, I can also unerstand the comments about the Crusaders. This is not normal situation, abd they do deserve praise. It's not unreasonable for Crusaders fans to wonder how they would have gone under vaguely normal conditions. I know that Queensland suffered under the floods, but the Christchurch earthquake has a different feel. One reason is it is ongoing, They earthquakes keep coming everyday. The town centre and access to many amenities that people take for granted were effectively closed down for months. It wears people down.

The travel is unusal. The lack of games in Chrsitchurch is an issue. Even Timaru is a 160 miles to the south. The reality is they needed to play games in places like Wellington and Twickerham. The earthquake has devestated them financially as well. I think it's heartless to begrudge them the opportunity to survive financially.

IMO they suffered a much harder, draw as well (over 40% of the Reds games were against sides with the worst records). The current format makes it hard for NZ teams which have traditionally dominated the competition (roughly half the semi finalists, over the course of the competition, have come from NZ).

Having said that, the competition is never balanced. The South African teams have always been diadvantaged by the travel factor. You play what is in front of you.

Welshjohn, there's a difference between making excuses and discussing aspects of a loss.

If the only comments you are permitted to make are regurgitations of statements of fact e.g. "The reds won, well done. The crusaders lost bad luck not good enough, the reds scored more tries, the final was in Brisbane" then this discussion board is going to get quite dry isn't it?

I don't see the issue in congratulating the Reds and then going on to think about what might have given them that edge. Normally that would be perhaps playing superiority in certain areas. This year is a very special case for CHCH and the Crusaders. I think it's a bit harsh to not in anyway allow a devastating natural disaster with obvious physical and psychological implications to be discussed in the context of this particular loss. For all the Welsh excuse making I've seen on this board and it's predecessor I would've thought you might be just slight sympathetic to that point of view.

Well said canelion...context in this case was all we were after.

Ah yes, the good old "context".

Ergo, let's have a look at the win in the context of all of the Crusaders difficulties before the final occurred to allow us to conclude they would have got more points, more wins, a home Semi, home final and the win. If that navel gazing allows you to feel Crusaders were the best side or would have been the best side and makes you feel better so be it. But it is thinly disguised excuse making.

If the tone was "gee, incredible they made it that far given the earthquakes' impact" that is being gracious in defeat, which is the tack Crusaders players, coach , and their management have taken.

The fact is the confluence of factors affecting the Crusaders meant they were not the best side this year and some of their key players are not at their best. They didn't win it; it is quite simple as hard as it is for to accept and admit it. Crusaders are no longer the best side. The Reds are. They used to be the best. But that is the past. Time to move on.

"Crusaders are no longer the best side. The Reds are. They used to be the best."

Well I thought I had moved on. Using your definition, Crusaders havnt been the best for some years. i.e.- they havnt 'won...it'

Using the word 'best'- since it isnt the definition of the 2011 Superxv champion and as such is open to conjecture.

Each to their own opinion.

Did the Reds fully deserve the Superxv title of 2011. Yes.
Were they the best team of 2011. My opinion? No.

Moving along then.

It has also been a special time for Queensland....don't forget it.

Also look at if from a Reds prospective. Being blinkered and excuse seeking becomes tiresome.

Wow, nearly a week since the Reds won and this thread is still going strong.

Thats because linebreaker some people seem to want absolution in victory in every sense of the word when its not absolutely warranted necessarily in every situation. And people are entitled to their opinions- even after a week.

Its turned sour yes and theres such a thing as humble winners and bad losers.
Here we seem to have neither.

Thats sport.

During the 3N I will of course be supporting the AB's, but also the merits of the other two teams as we have the highest respect for both.

During the World cup same again and I will be supporting both SH team's teams outside any matches with them.

The SANZAR relationship is a strong one and although we dont always see eye to eye hopefully we'll still respect each others opionions.

Me too Taylorman - I support home country and then the nearest neighbour. But then I jump up to NH for 3rd, 4th, etc over PI nations or SA.

For me the Reds victory was absolute. People can have their say of course but I notice a few find it hard to move on and have very interesting opinions which detracts from a sensible argument sometimes.

"That's sport" as you say - but I can also see some posters might carry this baggage for years. I find that a little bemusing. Then again I've developed a hardy defense mechanism - I've had to... being an Aussie. but it's not a crime to accept defeat either.

Fair enough. I've had to think whether its worth bothering about replying but now its beginning to feel like the Reds maybe didnt deserve the win which isnt the case.

Its just babble now and other than our ITM theres not a lot on till your match with SA next week.

Whats your take on that one?

I see the Bok team had to turn back. The Q A N T A S plane... they were on their way to Oz on apparently blew an engine and they had to turn back. Landed without incident ok.

Not the best start for the 3N. Man weve had it all this year...
Earthquakes, flooding, volcanic ash delaying flights and now an engine problem.

Let alone a new format full of injuries and a World cup year.

I saw the first ITM match today...it was a close one and I'm watching the local Shute Shield now, Randwick-Easts, bits of Collingwood-Carlton (massive crowd 85,936!)...and checking the other ITM match that's currently on as well.

To be honest, I'm a little out of touch with the SA situation apart from what Biltong has informed us. I know 21 players are being rested or have injuries. As BB says, some good players but worries about working combinations and experience as a unit on the field. They'll probably have a respectable away leg but I'm hoping the Ws can account for them. (Always a shadow of doubt even when the experts say "things look promising"!)

I'm glad that the plane turned back safely...it must be one of the A-380s. I thought all the RR engines were replaced/overhauled? Maybe there is some very fine volcanic ash still around?

Taylorman wrote:Thats because linebreaker some people seem to want absolution in victory in every sense of the word when its not absolutely warranted necessarily in every situation. And people are entitled to their opinions- even after a week.

Its turned sour yes and theres such a thing as humble winners and bad losers.
Here we seem to have neither.

Thats sport.

During the 3N I will of course be supporting the AB's, but also the merits of the other two teams as we have the highest respect for both.

During the World cup same again and I will be supporting both SH team's teams outside any matches with them.

The SANZAR relationship is a strong one and although we dont always see eye to eye hopefully we'll still respect each others opionions.

I think the post has gone for a bit because some have wanted to lament the loss, and explore it - not so much by discussing the game but looking for excuses. I'm not sour at all - my team won!. I have had a big grin for a week after supporting the Reds for more than 30 years!

Aussies have been losing for years and years and have just had to suck it up in the process. However as a poster said, the winners get the bragging rights. It is suggested that there are no humble winners or bad losers. There is also such a thing as being a gracious loser. We don't have that here either. On the one hand you say the Reds won but then it is they were not the best in the competition. I guess they will have to live with the trophy I the cabinet but realise they were not the best team in the competition. That's not a crusade for absolution (pardon the pun). That's just miserable, and small minded. It's bad sport. But we have all types - bad sports are simply that and there is often no reasoning with them.

I too will be supporting the ABs and SAs at the world cup. If Aust can't win or are not in the final, then I would feel disappointed for the ABS if they don't get it notwithstanding some of their miserable fans attitude whenever they lose.

I don't think there's any excuse making going on here.

But you can't help notice the coincidence between the new competition format and suddenly a side who haven't featured before, suddenly win off the back of a shortened run into the final and a home game based on seedings from a pool that didn't involve them playing as many ( or any ) matches against the better sides? That sounds like a fairly funamental "reason" to me, rather than any kind of excuse making. It's just a fact that the new format will always favour the weaker conference.

TGG - I don't think there's any coincidence. The reds were pretty woeful at the start of last year and improved dramatically during the season and made the qualifiers. This year they just continued on from where they left off.

No doubt they're a good side and deserved the win based on the performance in the final...however they got there.

I was going to do a thread about an S15 inquest but just could`nt be bothered. The new format by franchises was trialled this year,it is obvious
from this two things.
All the franchises could lose 2 and in the case of Australia ,3 teams.
Australian franchise top 2 won 13,and 10 matches each,last 3 winning 4,5,3.
South Africa franchise top 3 won 12,10.10 bottom 2 5,3 respectively.
Nz franchise top3 won 11,10,8 bottom 2,6 and 5.
Sanzar arranged the draw The Reds won both the league stage and knock out stages. Winning most matches they deserved to win the trophy no arguments.
As to the draw Reds played each Australian side twice[losing to Waratahs and Brumbies],two top and two bottom NZ sides top 2 at home,bottom 2 away losing to Hurricanes. plus two top Sa sides one home,one away,two bottom sides one home one away.they lost 3 games.they played 2games each against a top Sa, NZ,and Aus side plus 10 against the weakest franchiseses.
Crusaders by contrast played all the NZ sides twice except the Hurricanes which was abandoned as a draw,2 top and 2 bottom Australian sides,plus 3 top and one lower table SA sides.
They won all there nominal home games and lost away to the Cheetahs, Reds, Blues ,and Highlanders.
They did`nt play Rebels or Lions matches they would expect 4 or 5 points from home or away.
The points bought up in debate at various times,if it continues as S15 larger squads say 40 players required. Points for Bye games should`nt count.
All the officials should be neutral and possibly Nh ones as well.
Injuries indicate too many games being played same for all franchises,cynic in me says if not RWC year many of the playersconcerned would have played more.
The draw definetly wants looking at as ALL australian sides were advantaged not just the Reds.
The idea of another SA franchise is ludicrous they cannot sustain the
one they have.
Australia cannot sustain more than 3 at best,NZ could at a pinch sustain 4
Conclusions reduce number of sides and play home and away,or go for a two tier arrangement with one up one down each year.
Reality says money will tell if there is an addition it should be an argentine side with a squad of at least 40.

The most glaring aspect about this tournament is the injury toll and the focus on being in touch with the top of the conference.

This year showed teams cannot stray far from the top or they face not only not qualifying but facing the as yet impossible task the Sharks and Crusaders faced- playing in all 3 countries to get a chance at the title- I would suggest a bridge too far for anyone outside the top 4.

This means the teams need to play their best teams every week or perhaps get them back when they are not fully 100% fit.

The home advantage is still strong with only the Saders again breaching the rule in the finals., clouding the issue.

Somethings gotta change.

TheGreyGhost wrote:I don't think there's any excuse making going on here.

But you can't help notice the coincidence between the new competition format and suddenly a side who haven't featured before, suddenly win off the back of a shortened run into the final and a home game based on seedings from a pool that didn't involve them playing as many ( or any ) matches against the better sides? That sounds like a fairly funamental "reason" to me, rather than any kind of excuse making. It's just a fact that the new format will always favour the weaker conference.

But they beat the Crusaders in the final.

Be quiet anyway, you lost face up to it. There is a distince possibility after Mid October you'll be whinging for another 4 years you silly little man.

REDS TRULY SMASHED THE CRUSADERS IN THE FINAL well done Queensland.

Welshlad, your schadenfreude is truely epic. You boys just focus on trying to get out of your group this time...after this mornings show you must be truely worried, so I'll let that obvious WUM go.

You didn't ! but as said, you are something not worthy of being on the sole of my shoe.