QF Chiefs v Blues
-
-
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@frugby said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
Being real, not starting your best loose forward, because you want “impact” is woke nonsense. Wallace Sititi should be playing the 80. Monumental error from McMillan.
Sititi seemed to go missing when the going got tough for his team - like he did in last years final.
I think you've said this a couple of times re last year, but it isn't correct. IIRC Sititi made the most tackles for the Chiefs in that final, 20-something. It was a very different game to the attacking display against the Canes, but as a loosie in a losing team it was a strong individual performance . To me it just showed that he is good going forwards and backwards.
He certainly wasn't dominant last night - but he was not really bad either - and there were mitigating factors in losing Jacobson, which shifted the plan from subbing (probably) Finau to needing him to play 80, then losing Parker to injury, so playing with 6 forwards i.e..2 loosies, and one of them knackered cause he's been playing half games all year. -
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@frugby said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
Being real, not starting your best loose forward, because you want “impact” is woke nonsense. Wallace Sititi should be playing the 80. Monumental error from McMillan.
Sititi seemed to go missing when the going got tough for his team - like he did in last years final.
I think you've said this a couple of times re last year, but it isn't correct. IIRC Sititi made the most tackles for the Chiefs in that final, 20-something.
I remember Shannon Frizell in early parts of his career making 20 tackles when the AB's lost. Making 20 tackles is meaningless when you and your team get physically dominated and you lose comfortably.
He may have made 20 tackles but he was unable to do anything to stop the Blues possession and gain line dominance in that game last year. Loose forwards who want to play in a winning team against France or South Africa need to be able to smash players back behind the advantage line, or win turnovers at the breakdown, or prevent the other team from getting the ball when their team are in possession. He did none of those things last year and the Blues forwards were allowed to walk all over the Chiefs.
Sititi failed to do stop the Blues last night forwards last night in that 20 minutes as he did in the final last year. He made zero impact against the Blues forwards last night in that facet in that last 20 minutes and overall he had a quiet game for the time that he was on when his team needed to turn up and take the game by the throat.
When you look at the games Sititi participated in last year he only won one against the top sides - against Ireland - who have a smaller pack. He's a long way from the finished article. He's a good runner with the ball, a good lineout option, and has a good tackle workrate, but he's still got to learn how to win the collisions without the ball.
-
@KiwiMurph said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
I thought it was interesting when Beauden was interviewed post game the first person he mentioned when asked about his kick strategy was Vern Cotter - really crediting him
Was there something particularly good or new about Beauden's kicking strategy that I missed? Obviously 2 x great chips for himself, but an overall strategy? Kicking the ball away under advantage is a strategy of sorts I guess, but not a good one. I didn't see anything new, (though the chips were much better placed than usual).
-
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@frugby said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
Being real, not starting your best loose forward, because you want “impact” is woke nonsense. Wallace Sititi should be playing the 80. Monumental error from McMillan.
Sititi seemed to go missing when the going got tough for his team - like he did in last years final.
I think you've said this a couple of times re last year, but it isn't correct. IIRC Sititi made the most tackles for the Chiefs in that final, 20-something.
I remember Shannon Frizell in early parts of his career making 20 tackles when the AB's lost. Making 20 tackles is meaningless when you and your team get physically dominated and you lose comfortably.
He may have made 20 tackles but he was unable to do anything to stop the Blues possession and gain line dominance in that game last year. Loose forwards who want to play in a winning team against France or South Africa need to be able to smash players back behind the advantage line, or win turnovers at the breakdown, or prevent the other team from getting the ball when their team are in possession. He did none of those things last year and the Blues forwards were allowed to walk all over the Chiefs.
Sititi failed to do stop the Blues last night forwards last night in that 20 minutes as he did in the final last year. He made zero impact against the Blues forwards last night in that facet in that last 20 minutes and overall he had a quiet game for the time that he was on when his team needed to turn up and take the game by the throat.
When you look at the games Sititi participated in last year he only won one against the top sides - against Ireland - who have a smaller pack. He's a long way from the finished article. He's a good runner with the ball, a good lineout option, and has a good tackle workrate, but he's still got to learn how to win the collisions without the ball.
He's one man bro, out of 23. Winning percentages based on a single player are just irrelevant. It's not impossible to play well in a beaten side, even in one that gets thrashed. Plenty of examples over the years of heroic defensive performances in outplayed sides.
-
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@frugby said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
Being real, not starting your best loose forward, because you want “impact” is woke nonsense. Wallace Sititi should be playing the 80. Monumental error from McMillan.
Sititi seemed to go missing when the going got tough for his team - like he did in last years final.
I think you've said this a couple of times re last year, but it isn't correct. IIRC Sititi made the most tackles for the Chiefs in that final, 20-something.
I remember Shannon Frizell in early parts of his career making 20 tackles when the AB's lost. Making 20 tackles is meaningless when you and your team get physically dominated and you lose comfortably.
He may have made 20 tackles but he was unable to do anything to stop the Blues possession and gain line dominance in that game last year. Loose forwards who want to play in a winning team against France or South Africa need to be able to smash players back behind the advantage line, or win turnovers at the breakdown, or prevent the other team from getting the ball when their team are in possession. He did none of those things last year and the Blues forwards were allowed to walk all over the Chiefs.
Sititi failed to do stop the Blues last night forwards last night in that 20 minutes as he did in the final last year. He made zero impact against the Blues forwards last night in that facet in that last 20 minutes and overall he had a quiet game for the time that he was on when his team needed to turn up and take the game by the throat.
When you look at the games Sititi participated in last year he only won one against the top sides - against Ireland - who have a smaller pack. He's a long way from the finished article. He's a good runner with the ball, a good lineout option, and has a good tackle workrate, but he's still got to learn how to win the collisions without the ball.
He's one man bro, out of 23. Winning percentages based on a single player are just irrelevant. It's not impossible to play well in a beaten side, even in one that gets thrashed. Plenty of examples over the years of heroic defensive performances in outplayed sides.
And that wasn't one of them.
The bottom line is he wasn't winning collisions for his team last night on defence.
-
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@frugby said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
Being real, not starting your best loose forward, because you want “impact” is woke nonsense. Wallace Sititi should be playing the 80. Monumental error from McMillan.
Sititi seemed to go missing when the going got tough for his team - like he did in last years final.
I think you've said this a couple of times re last year, but it isn't correct. IIRC Sititi made the most tackles for the Chiefs in that final, 20-something.
I remember Shannon Frizell in early parts of his career making 20 tackles when the AB's lost. Making 20 tackles is meaningless when you and your team get physically dominated and you lose comfortably.
He may have made 20 tackles but he was unable to do anything to stop the Blues possession and gain line dominance in that game last year. Loose forwards who want to play in a winning team against France or South Africa need to be able to smash players back behind the advantage line, or win turnovers at the breakdown, or prevent the other team from getting the ball when their team are in possession. He did none of those things last year and the Blues forwards were allowed to walk all over the Chiefs.
Sititi failed to do stop the Blues last night forwards last night in that 20 minutes as he did in the final last year. He made zero impact against the Blues forwards last night in that facet in that last 20 minutes and overall he had a quiet game for the time that he was on when his team needed to turn up and take the game by the throat.
When you look at the games Sititi participated in last year he only won one against the top sides - against Ireland - who have a smaller pack. He's a long way from the finished article. He's a good runner with the ball, a good lineout option, and has a good tackle workrate, but he's still got to learn how to win the collisions without the ball.
I commend your courage in pointing out a possible weakness in Sititi's game.
He's a massive Fern favorite (and with good reason) -
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@brodean said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@frugby said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
Being real, not starting your best loose forward, because you want “impact” is woke nonsense. Wallace Sititi should be playing the 80. Monumental error from McMillan.
Sititi seemed to go missing when the going got tough for his team - like he did in last years final.
I think you've said this a couple of times re last year, but it isn't correct. IIRC Sititi made the most tackles for the Chiefs in that final, 20-something.
I remember Shannon Frizell in early parts of his career making 20 tackles when the AB's lost. Making 20 tackles is meaningless when you and your team get physically dominated and you lose comfortably.
He may have made 20 tackles but he was unable to do anything to stop the Blues possession and gain line dominance in that game last year. Loose forwards who want to play in a winning team against France or South Africa need to be able to smash players back behind the advantage line, or win turnovers at the breakdown, or prevent the other team from getting the ball when their team are in possession. He did none of those things last year and the Blues forwards were allowed to walk all over the Chiefs.
Sititi failed to do stop the Blues last night forwards last night in that 20 minutes as he did in the final last year. He made zero impact against the Blues forwards last night in that facet in that last 20 minutes and overall he had a quiet game for the time that he was on when his team needed to turn up and take the game by the throat.
When you look at the games Sititi participated in last year he only won one against the top sides - against Ireland - who have a smaller pack. He's a long way from the finished article. He's a good runner with the ball, a good lineout option, and has a good tackle workrate, but he's still got to learn how to win the collisions without the ball.
He's one man bro, out of 23. Winning percentages based on a single player are just irrelevant. It's not impossible to play well in a beaten side, even in one that gets thrashed. Plenty of examples over the years of heroic defensive performances in outplayed sides.
And that wasn't one of them.
The bottom line is he wasn't winning collisions for his team last night on defence.
Completely agree with that. Completely diisagree re last year and the generalisations and AB games.
-
@reprobate said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@KiwiMurph said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
I thought it was interesting when Beauden was interviewed post game the first person he mentioned when asked about his kick strategy was Vern Cotter - really crediting him
Was there something particularly good or new about Beauden's kicking strategy that I missed? Obviously 2 x great chips for himself, but an overall strategy? Kicking the ball away under advantage is a strategy of sorts I guess, but not a good one. I didn't see anything new, (though the chips were much better placed than usual).
I thought the mix of kicks by Beauden were good. He found grass a lot, he mixed things up - there were chips, bombs, cross kicks, long kicks.
I didn't mind the tactic last night to kick a lot - trying to play too much in your own half away from home in playoff rugby can be fraught with danger
-
@Bones said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@Tim said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
@Bones He dived over the ball. Fuck me.
That was the official sign from the devil that the deal is over.
Devil gets shirty when his own swap sides?!
-
@gt12 said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
I can’t argue with that.
You could see that loss coming from all the missed opportunities in the first half.
It felt a bit like Oct 31st 1999.
I’m just so fucking fucking furious about that kick for goal. I know it’s not the only important play but it was already so obvious that territory was more important than points at that stage.
That kick's an interesting one.
I don't absolutely hate it - because if he makes it the Chiefs are 8 points clear with not many minutes to play, and it's 95% game over.
Even missing it, you're going to get the ball back somewhere around halfway, with a bit of time off the clock.
It really depends on how likely DMac is to make it.
If it's only 50-50, I reckon you're better off kicking for the corner, expecting you'll either be able to score a try or get a better penalty shot at goal - and winding more time off the clock with the Blues pinned. As the Brumbies successfully did later in the evening.
It's been interesting watching the Reds - and last night the Brumbies - largely abandon penalties.
It's not always the right decision, but I quite like the strategy. I reckon we'll see Oz use it vs the Lions and I hope Razor's thinking on it as well.
-
@Chris-B said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
If it's only 50-50, I reckon you're better off kicking for the corner, expecting you'll either be able to score a try or get a better penalty shot at goal - and winding more time off the clock with the Blues pinned
Yes, if they had a functioning lineout
-
@Duluth I think I'd still have been inclined to think - our lineout's been solid most of the year - let's back ourselves and get it down there. At a minimum leave the Blues 90 metres to come back.
But, you're right - it might have played a part in their decision. But, I reckon they were probably mostly thinking about the 8 point lead.
-
@Duluth said in QF Chiefs v Blues:
I think you're right under normal circumstances. However a lineout operating a 64% and a team that was starting to lose the contact was a big factor.
I'm not sure if losing a lineout 15 metres from the opposition goal line is such a big deal? Worst case scenario, you get another lineout about 40 metres out when they inevitably clear the ball. Either way it eats up a decent chunk of time and you still have a higher chance than not of holding possession.
I'm also not sure the Chiefs were losing e contact battle at that point - they were just doing a lot of defending (another reason to kick deep and have a higher chance than not of retaining possession, as opposed to giving the ball immediately back).
-
