Reds v Chiefs
-
Extremely one sided game. Chiefs could easily have had another few tries. Reds appalling. Teams out of contention for playoffs footy sometimes roll over, and tonight the reds did.
-
D Mac raises the bat for 50.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Provincial Stalwart" data-cid="595219" data-time="1467977309">
<div>
<p>Extremely one sided game. Chiefs could easily have had another few tries. Reds appalling. Teams out of contention for playoffs footy sometimes roll over, and tonight the reds did.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The Reds were absolute shit long before they were out of contention.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Nice cruisy five pointer, just need to pick up the win next week to secure the top spot.</p> -
<p>Very easy win for the Chiefs. Deserved to win by 70.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sam Cane should take up comedy suggesting that the scoreline didn't reflect how tough that game was.......</p> -
<p>Did the Reds gain anything by sacking their coach?</p>
-
<p>Next time they add teams to the Super Rugby competition, they should split it into two tiers. The Reds, Force, Kings, Sunwolves, Jaguares, maybe Rebels, definitely deserve to be in a lower tier than the NZ teams, Tahs, Brumbies, Lions & Stormers. These games are just too awful.</p>
-
<p>The Aussies don't have the depth for 5 teams. Never did.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Result is scorelines like the two we saw last night. Expecting the Rebels to ship a similar amount of points tonight</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NZ Rugby Quizzes" data-cid="595293" data-time="1468010917"><p>The Aussies don't have the depth for 5 teams. Never did.<br> <br>Result is scorelines like the two we saw last night. Expecting the Rebels to ship a similar amount of points tonight</p></blockquote><br>I also think they should have four teams. I think having four successful teams is better for their rugby than 2 successful teams and 3 average teams. Just scrap the Force and give their<br>5-6 super rugby standard players to other teams.<br><br>The only difficulty is that it is hard to justify the expansion teams while cracking down on Aussie.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Milk" data-cid="595343" data-time="1468038653">
<div>
<p>Jeez, Sam Cane and Nathan Harris are big units these days.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Lot of people questioning Harris's inclusion but he is hard nosed and good around the paddock and his AB selection was justified. How about him starting at hooker and Coles coming on early in the second half with his speed?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="595344" data-time="1468038843"><p>Lot of people questioning Harris's inclusion but he is hard nosed and good around the paddock and his AB selection was justified. How about him starting at hooker and Coles coming on early in the second half with his speed?</p></blockquote>
Haha, not a chance, Coles is our starting hooker every day of the week unless being rested or injured. Harris looks solid but he's miles behind Coles at the moment. Great to have him and Taylor showing promise though, as for a while there we were looking pretty thin on depth at hooker with Kev retiring. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="595353" data-time="1468042819">
<div>
<p>Haha, not a chance, Coles is our starting hooker every day of the week unless being rested or injured. Harris looks solid but he's miles behind Coles at the moment. Great to have him and Taylor showing promise though, as for a while there we were looking pretty thin on depth at hooker with Kev retiring.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't know about miles behind. He brings a little more grit than Coles. Just thinking outside of the box kind of like the Cane/Savea thinking. Anyway I think we have good coverage at Hooker with all 3 of them.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="595365" data-time="1468048675">
<div>
<p>Don't know about miles behind. He brings a little more grit than Coles. Just thinking outside of the box kind of like the Cane/Savea thinking. Anyway I think we have good coverage at Hooker with all 3 of them.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>if we had a creevy, or a bismarck (of a couple of years ago) then for sure. but we don't right now.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="595365" data-time="1468048675">
<div>
<p>Don't know about miles behind. <strong>He brings a little more grit than Coles.</strong> Just thinking outside of the box kind of like the Cane/Savea thinking. Anyway I think we have good coverage at Hooker with all 3 of them.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Say what?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>He actually brings a little more standing on the wing than Coles and that's saying something.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In saying that he has developed nicely.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="595569" data-time="1468068949"><p>
Say what?<br><strong><br>
He actually brings a little more standing on the wing than Coles and that's saying something.</strong><br><br>
In saying that he has developed nicely.</p></blockquote>
<br>
You realise this is part of a team pattern. They don't just stand out on the wing for the sake it because they reckon they might get some glory? They're doing what they're told. Coles in the same team would be doing the same thing.
