Crusaders v Hurricanes
-
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning. That's the point we have been making. There was no option at that stage which gave the Hurricanes a greater than 50% chance of winning.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning. That's the point we have been making. There was no option at that stage which gave the Hurricanes a greater than 50% chance of winning.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
Our lineout is much better than that normally though.
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
Our lineout is much better than that normally though.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
Our lineout is much better than that normally though.
You went 8/10 in your first game, so let's split the difference.
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
Our lineout is much better than that normally though.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
Our lineout is much better than that normally though.
Ahhh that poor display must have contributed to J. Blackwell's dropping from the side that fronted against Moana Pasifika.
