Hurricanes v Blues
-
Great coaching.
@Steven-Harris I thought the defensive pattern and alignment from the Blues in the first half was very good. Other than that very early Lam try, they were well organised. Not sure if that’s because the 9-10 combo are better communicators, but it was good.
Blues still a little stunted in attack though, but I think that will come as they build confidence from their defensive efforts.
-
Well that was ugly and I bet MacDonald was not very happy. Not sure about all the kicking when you have a 3 man advantage. Lacking a good hooker. Akira acquitted himself well tonight and I hope he is getting the message. His work rate was a lot higher. He is always impressive in tackling as is PT.
@broughie said in Hurricanes v Blues:
Well that was ugly and I bet MacDonald was not very happy. Not sure about all the kicking when you have a 3 man advantage. Lacking a good hooker. Akira acquitted himself well tonight and I hope he is getting the message. His work rate was a lot higher. He is always impressive in tackling as is PT.
Their ability to think how to take advantage of the numbers was terrible. Kicking the ball away from where the advantage was all the time instead of just pressuring the breakdown over and over until gaps appeared.
-
@broughie said in Hurricanes v Blues:
Well that was ugly and I bet MacDonald was not very happy. Not sure about all the kicking when you have a 3 man advantage. Lacking a good hooker. Akira acquitted himself well tonight and I hope he is getting the message. His work rate was a lot higher. He is always impressive in tackling as is PT.
Their ability to think how to take advantage of the numbers was terrible. Kicking the ball away from where the advantage was all the time instead of just pressuring the breakdown over and over until gaps appeared.
-
I didn't mind the kicking. The breakdown was a lottery with that ref. Holding the ball was a reasonable chance of a penalty to the defence.
The Canes were struggling to get the ball through the midfield so tackling was easyThe quality of the kicking could have been better though
-
I didn't mind the kicking. The breakdown was a lottery with that ref. Holding the ball was a reasonable chance of a penalty to the defence.
The Canes were struggling to get the ball through the midfield so tackling was easyThe quality of the kicking could have been better though
@Duluth said in Hurricanes v Blues:
I didn't mind the kicking. The breakdown was a lottery with that ref. Holding the ball was a reasonable chance of a penalty to the defence.
The Canes were struggling to get the ball through the midfield so tackling was easyThe quality of the kicking could have been better though
Are you sure that the best way to take advantage of having three more players is to kick the ball away?
Surely holding onto the ball and playing with it ups yours odds considerably? -
@Crucial Exactly. You almost thought they were trying to intentionally throw the game away instead of adding points.
@broughie I'd say it was lack of cool heads, making good decisions, Blues were in a position to beat a NZ team, something they hadnt done for a long time, i expect that carries some mental baggage.
That is where Parsons should be earning his coin.
-
@broughie I'd say it was lack of cool heads, making good decisions, Blues were in a position to beat a NZ team, something they hadnt done for a long time, i expect that carries some mental baggage.
That is where Parsons should be earning his coin.
-
@Duluth said in Hurricanes v Blues:
I didn't mind the kicking. The breakdown was a lottery with that ref. Holding the ball was a reasonable chance of a penalty to the defence.
The Canes were struggling to get the ball through the midfield so tackling was easyThe quality of the kicking could have been better though
Are you sure that the best way to take advantage of having three more players is to kick the ball away?
Surely holding onto the ball and playing with it ups yours odds considerably?@Crucial said in Hurricanes v Blues:
Are you sure that the best way to take advantage of having three more players is to kick the ball away?
Surely holding onto the ball and playing with it ups yours odds considerably?It was very conservative. Yes holding the ball would have been the best way to take advantage.
However the Canes had the rub of the green at the breakdown all night. The best chance the Canes had of getting back into was penalties giving them easy field position
They had zero chance of scoring 80m tries with how their attack was going
It was about the best way of not losing. Not the best way of (maybe) racking up points
-
@taniwharugby might be right on the mental mind fuck of not beating a NZ team but 12 men?
@broughie that probably presents another issue in your mind in that you MUST take advantage of it...I very much doubt you do much practice of 15 v 12...Hansen said they had planned in the RWC for losing a player, I expect that would be offensively and defensively, but having such a massive advantage would be interesting problem to have too.
-
@broughie that probably presents another issue in your mind in that you MUST take advantage of it...I very much doubt you do much practice of 15 v 12...Hansen said they had planned in the RWC for losing a player, I expect that would be offensively and defensively, but having such a massive advantage would be interesting problem to have too.
@taniwharugby true. How about the KISS principle and just pound it in the forwards. Any way you slice it it did not reek of confidence.
-
@taniwharugby true. How about the KISS principle and just pound it in the forwards. Any way you slice it it did not reek of confidence.
@broughie again, cool heads and good decisions?
-
@taniwharugby true. How about the KISS principle and just pound it in the forwards. Any way you slice it it did not reek of confidence.
-
@broughie of course you have to have a good halfback who can read the game and organize this. The blues are lacking in that area as well.
@broughie yep, Ruru seems very instinctive which in that situation you probably don't need.
-
@taniwharugby true. How about the KISS principle and just pound it in the forwards. Any way you slice it it did not reek of confidence.
@broughie said in Hurricanes v Blues:
Any way you slice it it did not reek of confidence.
Sure, as I said it was conservative
However I don't think you can ignore that the Canes were getting breakdown penalties relatively easily
That was their unlikely way of getting back into the gameTheir lineout and attack was struggling. A territory game made the chance of turning it around almost nill
-
@broughie I'd say it was lack of cool heads, making good decisions, Blues were in a position to beat a NZ team, something they hadnt done for a long time, i expect that carries some mental baggage.
That is where Parsons should be earning his coin.
@taniwharugby said in Hurricanes v Blues:
I'd say it was lack of cool heads, making good decisions, Blues were in a position to beat a NZ team, something they hadnt done for a long time, i expect that carries some mental baggage.
That is where Parsons should be earning his coin.
The call probably came from the coaches? Whether or not you agree with it, the Blues were all clearly following a game plan in that last 20 and finally got the result.
Maybe they wouldn't have played the territory if the Canes attack was functioning? Or if they could rely on winning the ball from their own rucks (The Blues were losing the subjective ref calls at the breakdown all match)
Conservative and winning will do
-
@taniwharugby said in Hurricanes v Blues:
I'd say it was lack of cool heads, making good decisions, Blues were in a position to beat a NZ team, something they hadnt done for a long time, i expect that carries some mental baggage.
That is where Parsons should be earning his coin.
The call probably came from the coaches? Whether or not you agree with it, the Blues were all clearly following a game plan in that last 20 and finally got the result.
Maybe they wouldn't have played the territory if the Canes attack was functioning? Or if they could rely on winning the ball from their own rucks (The Blues were losing the subjective ref calls at the breakdown all match)
Conservative and winning will do
-
@Duluth said in Hurricanes v Blues:
The Blues were losing the subjective ref calls at the breakdown all match
The Canes will tell you otherwise. In fact it was singled out by the coach as something he would be asking about in the post match review.
@Crucial said in Hurricanes v Blues:
The Canes will tell you otherwise. In fact it was singled out by the coach as something he would be asking about in the post match review.
Ha. That was their best area and it was largely unearned.
Their coaches need to concentrate on the real issues before the Chiefs/Crusaders away
-
@taniwharugby said in Hurricanes v Blues:
I'd say it was lack of cool heads, making good decisions, Blues were in a position to beat a NZ team, something they hadnt done for a long time, i expect that carries some mental baggage.
That is where Parsons should be earning his coin.
The call probably came from the coaches? Whether or not you agree with it, the Blues were all clearly following a game plan in that last 20 and finally got the result.
Maybe they wouldn't have played the territory if the Canes attack was functioning? Or if they could rely on winning the ball from their own rucks (The Blues were losing the subjective ref calls at the breakdown all match)
Conservative and winning will do
-
@Duluth you can still be following instructions/plans and make poor decisions and execution, putting yourselves under unnecessary pressure
Yup. I mentioned the quality of kicks was mixed
